IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8825 of 2008 Sheo Kumar Singh, S/o Late Balgovind Singh, Resident of Mohalla – Koeri Bari, P.S. – Civil Lines, District – Gaya. At present residing at C/o Laljee Singh, Sugar Mill, P.S. – Bihta, District – Patna… …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through its General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairley Place, Kolkata. 2. The Chief Security Officer-cum-IG, Eastern Railway New Koilaghat, Kolkata. 3. The Security Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway Mughalsarai, Varanasi. 5. The Security Officer, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai, Varanasi. 6. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna. 7. The Senior Account Officer, East Central Railway Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna. 8. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna. 9. The Senior Account Officer, East Central Railway, Mughalsari, Varanasi. ……….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 09.11.2011 Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay the retiral benefits such as provident fund, bonus and other consequential benefits. It has been emphatically stated that full amount of provident fund has not been paid till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the error was committed by the respondent authority due to the reason that deduction of the provident fund from the salary of the petitioner was deposited in two different accounts and as such the respondent 2 authority has failed to make payment of entire amount of G.P.F. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India and in paragraph no. 8 it has been specifically stated that retiral benefits whatever was due in favour of the petitioner had already been paid to him in the year 1983 -1984. Fact remains that the petitioner retired in the year 1983 and after lapse of about nineteen years he had approached this court by filing a writ petition vide CWJC No. 13148 of 2002 which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise remaining claim, if any, before the authority concerned by filing representation. Again in the year 2004 the petitioner filed an another writ petition which was disposed of along with several other writ petitions and subsequently a contempt petition was filed in the year 2005 which stood disposed of on 01.10.2007. On perusal of the writ petition it further appears that vide ‘Annexure – 3’ at page - 18 the authority concerned had intimated the petitioner that period involved in the case was quite old of 1950 and it was difficult to locate certain records. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner retired in the year 1983 and thereafter on two occasions the petitioner approached this court by filing writ petitions and no positive order was passed, the court is of the opinion that at this belated stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner retired in the year 1983. The writ petition stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)