IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20701 of 2011 Most.Gauri Devi aged about 69 years W/o Late Ram Prit Mistri, resident of Village Marsua, P.O. Kurtha Bazar, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collectorate Jehanabad, District Jehanabad. 2. The Sub- Divisional Agriculture Officer Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer (Gen), District Jehanabad. 3. The Joint Commissioner Cum Director Provident Fund Directorate, Patna, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad, District Jehanabad. ... ... Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 25.11.2011. Heard Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Iqbal Asif Neyazi, learned A.C. to G.P.4 appearing on behalf of all the respondents. In some and substance, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay statutory interest on the amount of G.P.F. for the period 1993 to December 1996. The husband of the petitioner, while working as Village Labour Worker, died on 16.10.1992. From the averment made in the writ petition itself, it appears that from time to time payment under the head of G.P.F. was made to the petitioner and final payment of G.P.F. amount was made to the petitioner vide Memo No.141 dated 3.6.2006. It is 2 evident that petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.1097 of 2006, which was disposed of on 31.10.2007 with following observations : “ This Court accordingly directs the petitioner to approach the District Provident Fund Officer with a copy of today’s rejoinder which contains the calculation chart of her own and the District Provident Fund Officer shall fix a date and on the given date the petitioner will satisfy that the calculation chart made with regard to G.P.F. amount is correct calculation. If any discrepancy arises, the District Provident Fund Officer shall take steps for making payment of the balance amount, if it so accures. Let this exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of communication of production of a copy of this order.” Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 submits that thereafter, petitioner filed contempt petition, which stood dismissed due to non prosecution on 6.1.2010. No explanation has been given regarding filing of any restoration petition in respect of M.J.C. No.1505 of 2008. The court is of the opinion that since final payment of the G.P.F. amount was made in the year 2006 itself after lapse of such a long time, it would be difficult for this Court to record any finding for grant of interest on such claim of delayed payment and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)