IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18587 of 2010 DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD YADAV SON OF LATE KHUHLI YADAV RESIDENT OF SHASTRI NAGAR, POLICE STATION BANGAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, RETIRED AS DISTRICT YOUTH CO-ORDINATOR, NEHRU YUVA KENDRA, GOPALGANJ, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. Versus 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF G.P.F DIRECTORATE, BIHAR, PANT BHAWAN, PATNA. 7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY SCHOOL), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE PRINCIPAL, RAJKIYA UCHCH VIDYALAYA, KUMARBAGH, WEST CHAMPARAN. 9. THE DIRECTORATE OF GPF GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA.. ----------- 2 10.11.2010 As prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, Directorate of GPF, Govt. of Bihar, Patna is permitted to be added as respondent no.9. Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his provident fund dues for the period 1966 to 1988, when the petitioner was serving under the State of Bihar. While working under the respondent no. 8, the services of the petitioner was sent on deputation with the Government of India in the department of Nehru 2 Yuva Kendra, from where the petitioner retired in the year 2002. It is further submitted that the admissible provident fund dues has been sent by the Central Government to the State Government. However, till date petitioner has not received any amount on account of the provident fund dues from the State Government for the services rendered under the State Government. However, he has received part amount from the Central Government, and the rest amount payable by the Central Government has been remitted to the State of Bihar. As would be evident on perusal of Annexure 7 and 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the claim of the petitioner needs to be verified from the record. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the pending claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no.9 with a copy to respondent nos. 2, 6, 7, and 8. In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider the claims of the petitioner as 3 raised in the representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner may be settled without delay and the admitted dues may also be paid along with interest permissible under the rules. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Amrendra/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)