IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.38 of 2005 BALESHWAR PRASAD, son of Late Janardan Prasad resident of village- Khadanpura, P.O. Hussaini, P.S. Kesarai, District- West Champaran, at present residing at Basaria, Near Imli Chowk at Bettiah, District-West Champaran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Industries, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna 4. Executive Director, Regional Office at Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur ----------- 7 18.01.2010 I.A. No. 299 of 1010 The interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the original petitioner by his legal heir. The interlocutory application is allowed. Let the name of original petitioner Baleshwar Prasad be expunged from the records of the proceeding and be substituted by his widow Mosst. Savitri Devi, the details of whom is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Abhinay Raj learned A.C. to G.P.9 for the State 2 and Mr. Lalit Kishore learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the B.I.A.D.A. Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Authority). Petitioner has filed the writ petition for payment of his retiral benefits. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was an appointee of the State Government in the Industries Department and remained in State Government service from 28.11.1964 to 15.6.1978. The service of the petitioner was transferred to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority in 1978 from where the petitioner retired with effect from 31st October 2000, the present writ petition came to be filed upon non payment of his retiral benefits by the State Government as well as the Authority. The details of the same have been set out in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Ajay Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire admissible dues to which the petitioner is entitled has been cleared both by the State Government as well as the Authority save and except certain payments towards General Provident Fund amount, the details of which he 3 has mentioned in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on 19.8.2005. In paragraph 4 thereof it has been stated that the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna while issuing the authority slip for payment of the provident fund amount of the petitioner has failed to take into consideration the deductions made in the period 1976-1977 for Rs. 510, 1977-78 for Rs. 540 and 1978-79 for Rs. 180 which according to the petitioner, has not been credited in his Provident Fund account. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner retired from the services of the authority with effect from 31st October, 2000 and he has been paid the pensionary dues by the State Government belatedly in the year 2005 and thus he is entitled for payment of interest on pension from the date of his retirement until the same was disbursed on 5.5.2005. There are no pending claims as against the Authority. Having regard to the circumstances set forth and the materials on record it manifests that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the same is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of unpaid amount of the 4 G.P.F. as set out in paragraph 4(ii) of the reply before the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna who shall consider the same and if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine and the amount has not been paid then the same should be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation together with statutory interest calculated from the date of deductions were made until the same are paid to the petitioner. The petitioner though claims interest on belated payment of pension but no such prayer has been made in the writ petition and thus the submission cannot be accepted. The writ petition stands disposed of with the direction aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)