IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12578 of 2003 DILIP KUMAR SENGUPTA, son of Late M.N. Sengupta, resident of Ganga Villa Apartment, B.M. Das Road, Patna-800004. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, Govt. of India, Sharma Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Welfare, Govt. of India, Shram Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking and Insurance),Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi. 4. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nariman Point, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai. 5. The Regional Manager, L.I.C. of India, P. & G.S. Department, Jeevan Prakash, Hindustan Building, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata- 700072. 6. The Manager, P & G.S. Department (Annuity), L.I.C. of India, Jeevan Prakash, 8th Floor, 16, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-70072. 7. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikhaiji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. 8. The Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Sikkim, D.K. Block, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. 9. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, West Bengal, Andaman & Nicobar Island, Sikkim, D.K. Block, Sector II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. 10. The Managing Director (Raghunath Dey), Howrah Motor Co. Ltd., 16, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee Road, Kolkata- 700001. 11. The Managing Director, Howrah Motor Co. Ltd., 18 Dover Road, Howrah House, Kolkata-700026. ---Respondents ----------- 13. 31.3.2010 Heard Mr Sitesh Chandra Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the L.I.C., Mr N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel 2 appearing on behalf of the respondents no.10 and 11 and the learned counsel for respondents no.7 to 9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of this writ application, the grievances of the petitioner have been redressed. However, the amount still available in the superannuation fund, which was maintained by the Life Insurance Corporation and later on the same was remitted back to respondents no.10 and 11, has to be settled. Learned counsel submits that except respondents no.10 and 11, the petitioner has no grievance against other respondents. However, if so advised, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps against respondents no.10 and 11 as per law. In this view of the matter, this writ application stands disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)