IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14233 of 2006 JANAK DULARI DEVI W/o Sri Dinesh Chandra Sinha, resident of village-Kothwara, P.O.- Hardawan, P.S.-Dobhi, District- Gaya. ……. …… Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Deptt. of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Deptt. of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4.The Director-in-chief, Deptt. of Health, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 5.The Civil Surgeon-cum- the Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. 6. The Medical Officer, Nagar Prakhand, Chandauti, Gaya. 7.The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 8.The District Magistrate, Gaya 9. The Director, General Provident Fund, Provident Fund Directorate, Deptt. of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 10.The District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya 11. The Treasury Officer, Gaya 12. The Accountant General, Bihar, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna. …….. …….. Respondents ----------- 2. 29.4.2011. Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Juhi Kumari, learned A.C. to A.G.-XIII appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 11 and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.12/Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The present writ petition was initially filed for a direction to the respondents to make payment of G.P.F. amount with statutory admissible interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case, has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein it has been stated that, 2 during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been paid a total sum of Rs.2,75,872/- under the head of G.P.F. The petitioner claims that the respondents have not furnished the details of the calculation of G.P.F. amount and, as such, he has filed a representation before the District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya. Despite the fact that this case was filed in the year 2006 but no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that she has communicated through letter to the authority concerned but they have not responded. In view of the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2006 and also the fact that payment of G.P.F. amount has already been made, there is no need to further keep the matter pending before this court. However, since the petitioner has claimed before respondent no.10/The District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya, for furnishing details of the calculation of G.P.F. amount, it is desirable to direct the respondent no.10/The District Provident Fund Officer, Gaya to supply details of the calculation of G.P.F. amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far as relief no.2 mainly A.C.P is concerned, the court is of the opinion that this court while hearing post retiral dues, may not entertain such relief. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)