IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10917 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT S DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- MAHAVIRPRASAD Versus FOOD CORP.OF INDIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 10917 of 1995 MR US BRAHMBHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MS VARSHA TIWARI for Respondent No. 1-5 M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Respondent No. 1 MR YF MEHTA for Respondent No. 1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT S DAVE Date of decision: 13/12/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. A grievance is ventilated by the petitioner in the present writ petition with regard to non-payment of outstanding dues towards contribution of provident fund to the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner has made the following prayers in paragraph 10: "(A) Directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.24,910/- along with earning interest of 18% compound upto the date of actual payment forthwith; (B) To pay interest on Rs.1,46,216/- being PF amount at the rate of 18% compound interest from the date of retirement i.e. from 31.12.1994 till the date of realisation of the aforesaid amount; (C) To direct to release payment of Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme with reasonable time along with 18% compound interest and refund Rs.260/interest deducted by Baroda Bank:" 2. It is borne out from the record, and, as admitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the amount due to the petitioner has already been paid by the respondents, and, therefore, no grievance survives in the present matter. 3. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (Anant S. Dave, J.) (swamy)