IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.792 of 2002 BADRI JHA Versus DIRECTOR,GENERAL PROVIDENT FUN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Umeshwar Pd. Singh, Adv. For the Opp. Parties. : Mr. S.C. 8 --------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 7th July, 2008. In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges non- compliance of the order dated 7.11.2001. The order dated 7.11.2001 reads thus: “ In compliance of the order dated 8.10.2001 no counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated in the bar that up-til-now no payment has been made although there was clear direction to that effect in the order dated 8.10.2001. The counsel for the respondent no.2 again wants two weeks time. There is no reason as to why time should be taken again and again. When the petitioner had retired long back in the year 1995 and except being paid of paltry sum of Rs.14,000/- he had not been paid his retirement dues towards G.P.F. for such a long period. Respondent no.2 is hereby directed to make payment of the G.P.F. amount in full to the petitioner as already all formalities had been furnished as wanted from the side of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date - 2 - of the presentation of a copy of this order from the side of the petitioner with statutory interest. If this time also there is any delay then the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment deducting statutory interest and, as such, amount of interest in cases shall be liable to be adjusted from the salary of the officer concerned for whose negligence the high interest is being imposed. 2. In response to the contempt petition, show cause has been filed by opposite party nos. 1 and 2. Paragraph 6 of the show cause reads thus: “That in compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court the payment of petitioner remaining G.P.F. Dues was authorized for an amount of rs.79,462/- by the authority slip issued vide letter No.1106, dated 17.7.2993. this is in addition to the amount of Rs.14,634/- authorized earlier. The petitioner has therefore, been authorized full payment of his G.P.F. dues with up to date statutory interest and penal interest as ordered by the Hon’ble Court.” 3. It transpires that towards GPF dues, initially Rs.14,634/- was authorized but later on, pursuant to the order of this court aforequated, GPF dues were re-worked out and it was authorized for further sum of Rs.79,4462/- in addition to the earlier authorization of Rs.14,634. That the said payment has been made to the petitioner, is not in dispute. It is the specific case of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that by further authorization of Rs.79,462/- - 3 - statutory interest and penal interest as directed by this Court has been taken care of. 4. The counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the correctness of the statement made in paragraph 6 of the show cause. The main grievance is that in the entire reply, opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have not given any break up with regard to the principal amount relating to GPF, components of penal interest and the statutory interest. 5. In this contempt petition, we do not deem it necessary to go into minute calculation of statutory and penal interest. In this view of the matter, nothing further needs to be done at our end in this contempt petition. However, we clarify that if the petitioner makes a representation seeking break up of GPF payment made to him, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 shall consider the same and provide him break up within four weeks of receipt of representation. We order accordingly. 6. M.J.C. stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/