IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2595 of 2008 RAMJEE PRASAD SHARMA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH MR. AJAY NAYAK,THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR. 2. MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, THE SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. MR. JEETENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, THE DIRECTOR PROVIDENT FUND, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. MR.RAM BALAK PRASAD, THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, PURNIA. 5. MR. NEEL KAMAL, THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, MUNGER. 6. MR. AJIT MANOHAR KHALKHO, THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH) TUBE WELL PROJECT, SHEKHPURA, PATNA. 7. MR. N.K. MANDAL, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION (MECH. DIVISION) PURNIA. 8. MR. DWARIKA TIWARI, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL DIVISION, MUNGER. 9. MR. AJEET MANOHAR KHALKHO, THE CO-ORDINATOR, TUBE WELL PROTEJECT, BIHAR, VISHWSHWARAIYA BHAVAN, PATNA. 10. MR. NARAYAN PASWAN, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR WATER DEVP. CORPORATION, PATNA. ----------- 2. 29.07.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties. The petitioner has filed the present application alleging therein that the opposite parties have willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 26.09.2007, passed in CWJC 16106 of 2004 (Ramjee Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ application for payment of post-retirement dues, particularly the amount payable under the head GPF. In the writ application, it was admitted that he was sanctioned and paid a sum of Rs. 2, 76,901/-. The grievance put forth was that the authorities had not properly calculated the deduction(s) - 2 - from the salary for the period September 1984 to 1985. Considering the averments made in the counter affidavit that appropriate steps are being taken to ascertain the remaining lawful dues payable to him under the GPF head, this Court disposed of the writ application in the following manner: “Both the parties agreed that for said grievance the petitioner may be given liberty to file proper representation. Having considered the said submission and after perusal of the documents available on the record this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to file a detail representation supported by the documents, if any, as also copy of the order of this Court before the concerned respondents (Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Munger and the District Provident Officer, Purnia) as learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned respondents would be the respondent Executive Engineer as well as the respondent G.P.F. Purnia, within three weeks from today. If such a representation is filed in the manner stated above the concerned respondents shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order disposing of the said representation(s). If the order disposing of the representation(s) admit any dues that remain to be paid to the petitioner, the same should also be paid to him. Let such disposal of the representation be made within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation.” It is submitted that the petitioner made representation - 3 - before the District Provident Fund Officer, Purnea as well as the Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Munger within time, but neither the representation made by him in the light of the observations/directions by this Court has been disposed of nor the payment of the remaining amount of GPF has been made to him. A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4 (District Provident Fund Officer, Purnea). In paragraph 9 of the said show cause it is stated that Rs.753/- contributed in the year 1986/87 through bank draft was pending as no where number of the bank draft was mentioned though the answering opposite party has tried to trace out the bank draft number and the date of encashment, but in the meanwhile the records of the petitioner were shifted to Saharsa as the office of the irrigation Department (Mechanical Division) has shifted to Saharsa and hence the matter is pending under the jurisdiction of Saharsa GPF office. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the said show cause that the petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the GPF records concerning him was/were shifted to Saharsa, but knowingly and intentionally he has not made GPF Officer Saharsa as party to the writ proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the opposite parties in response to the application filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI) has admitted that a - 4 - total sum of Rs.1449.90 is/are found due and admissible to the petitioner under the head „GPF‟ but the same could not be paid to him for want of allotment from the Department/Government. Having considered the submissions and after going through the materials on record, including the nature of the order passed by this Court on the writ petition as also the stand taken by the concerned opposite party in the show cause, this Court disposes of the present application in the following manner: Let the petitioner file a fresh representation along with the documents before the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa within three weeks from today whereafter the District Provident Fund Officer shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a reasonable time. If the amount which is said to be admitted and payable to the petitioner by virtue of the document placed at Annexure-4 (a letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Munger contained in memo no.292l, dated 6.3.2008) the concerned authority shall authorize the payment in favour of the petitioner within ten weeks from the date of filing of the representation along with a copy of the present order. Looking to the stand taken in annexure-4, this Court also directs the Executive Engineer, Tube well Division, Munger to take all appropriate steps forthwith in tandem with the District - 5 - Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa and the department in order to ensure that remaining amount payable to the petitioner under the GPF head is/are paid within the aforesaid time. In case they default in authorizing payment of the remaining admitted dues payable to the petitioner within ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the aforesaid authorities, this Court directs that the petitioner shall also be entitled to the cost quantified at Rs.4000/- ( rupees four thousand) which shall be paid to the petitioner along with the admitted dues under the head GPF. With the aforesaid directions/observation, the application is disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )