IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16475 of 2008 M.M.SABIR HUSSAIN, son of late M.M.Gulam Rabbani, resident of Mohalla Jamaluddin Chak Colony, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Shahpur, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, State Provident Fund, Patna 3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical Cell Tool Division (Digha), Patna 5. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Patna 6. The Executive Engineer, (Mechanical) Bausy Karam Chak, Flood Protection Division, Digha Camp, Karbighiya, Patna, Irrigation Department … Respondents ----------- 2. 4.5.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The grievance in this writ petition of the petitioner is confined to payment of amount of G.P.F. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer wherein it has been stated in paragraph 5 as follows: “ It is also important to mention here that all the G.P.F. claim of the petitioner which was laying with the office of this answering respondent has been paid by two authority slips amounting to Rs. 2,02,999.00 and Rs. 22,234.00 issued respectively vide letter no. 1506 dated 26.9.2002 and 241 dated 2 15.2.2002.” Further in paragraph 6 as with regard to deductions in the provident fund for the period 1966 to 1982 the following stand has been taken: “ Petitioner also claims of the payment of G.P.F. amount deducted from his salary while he was working in work charge establishment during the year 1966 to 1982, about which E.E.Area Mechanical Division, Digha has intimated vide his letter no. 691 dated 25.5.2009 that the aforesaid amount of G.P.F. deducted during work charge period has been paid alongwith upto date interest to the writ petitioner through Banker’s cheque.” Further in paragraph 7 it has also been mentioned that a sum of Rs. 51,199.00 has been paid towards interest by a Banker’s cheque dated 19.5.2009. Added to all these counsel for the State also submits that the requisite information for the work charge establishment has been collected and is being furnished. That being so, the grievance of the petitioner on the head of G.P.F. seems to be 3 virtually redressed but then as the counsel for the petitioner is not present all that this Court would observe is that if any further amount to which the petitioner is legally entitled to under the head of G.P.F. he would be at liberty to approach the Assistant Commissioner, G.P.F. Directorate, the deponent of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 who in such event will be under obligation to look into the same and get it redressed to the extent it is permissible in law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/