IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10181 of 2003 Jai Chandra Paswan, son of late Govind Paswan, resident of Village- Alampur, P.O. & P.S.- Barh, District- Patna. …………… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul, District- Supaul. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa, District- Saharsa. 6. The Sub Treasury Officer, Barh, District- Patna. ……………. Respondents. ----------- 06 24.11.2008 The petitioner had come to this Court with grievance that notwithstanding the direction of this Court in CWJC No. 1799 of 2003 dated 13.05.2003 (Annexure-1) its stand now admitted that a deduction of Rs. 1,29,376/- has been made from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Accountant General, in which he annexed a communication dated 14.11.2008 addressed to the Treasury Officer, Patna and Sub Treasury Officer, Barh (Patna), whereby the Accountant General has directed the Treasury Officer to repay any deducted amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner to the petitioner immediately. In my view, this should suffice so far as relief is concerned. I accordingly direct the respondent no. 6 (Sub Treasury Officer, Barh, Patna ) to act in accordance with the directions of the Accountant General. The Sub Treasury Officer would be well advised to get effect to the order of the Accountant General within one month of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The petitioner’s other grievance is that the total amount of - 2 - deductions made on account of GPF during his service tenure was Rs. 83,982/- and as such GPF payable to him 2,51,946/- but he has only been paid Rs. 1,91,466/- by the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa. In my view, this controversy can only be resolved by the District Provident Officer. I direct that so far as controversy is concerned, petitioner would make a representation giving calculations of his GPF entitlement to the District Provident Officer, Saharsa along with a copy of this order. The District Provident Officer would verify the calculations and point out mistake if any to the petitioner. He would be obliged to discuss the detail basis of his calculation in the matter. If it is found that any amount was due and has not been paid the same would be paid to the petitioner within two months from today along with statutory interest @ 6% for delayed payment of GPF. In my view, this disposes of the writ petition. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)