IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16097 of 2004 GAYA PRASAD, son of late Shivdhari Prasad, resident of Village – Teknivas, P.S. Mohammadpur, District – Gopalganj ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Gopalganj. 3. The Block Development Officer, Hathuwa, District – Gopalganj. 4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Gopalganj. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 6. Jang Bahadur Choudhary, son of late Rigai Choudhary Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Jigna Jagarnath Village – Jigna Jagarnath, P S – Mirganj, District – Gopalganj ………………..Respondents ----------- 05. 27.01.2009 After exchange of certain affidavits between the parties, based on the materials brought on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner has two grievances left. One is that there is some discrepancy in the amount of gratuity which has been sanctioned vide G.P.O. No.413 (o5-06) dated 16.1.2007 and the actual payment. In terms of the authorization issued by the Accountant General the gratuity amounts to Rs.1, 66,997.00 whereas the actual payment made to the petitioner is Rs.1, 44,684.00. The Treasury Officer, Gopalganj has to explain as to why there is discrepancy in the authorization and actual payments. The second grievance of the petitioner is that total outstanding dues calculated under the GPF head is certain missing entries. These are for the period November 1969 to March 1979. Counsel for the State submits that he has detail of the deductions and is in position to produce the same before the authorities in case their records do not reflect the deductions. Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to produce the detail of the deductions for the period November, 1969 - 2 - to March, 1979 before the Provident Officer, Gopalganj who shall examine the matter and do the needful preferably within three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The Treasury Officer, Gopalganj shall pass an order in writing and communicate the same to the petitioner explaining the discrepancy for the payment of gratuity and actual authorization. If variation is not explainable then he shall take steps for payment of the balance amount to the petitioner. This exercise will be done within the same period. The writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)