IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2260 of 2010 DAROGA SINGH SON OF LATE PADUM SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAGADH VIHAR, H.NO. – 26B, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT – PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA – 04. 3. CHAIRMAN, THE BIHAR STATE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA -4. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR-CUM- CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA – 04. 4. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, R. BLOCK, ROAD NO. 06 PATNA - 01 ----------- 02. 09.02.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar Sinha, counsel for the respondent corporation and Mr. R.S. Pradhan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that loan availed by the petitioner from his provident fund account was granted and the repayment as per rule be made with simple interest, however, the respondent – Bank subsequently took an administrative decision and decided that the loans taken from the provident fund shall invite repayment with compound interest. It is further submitted that the above action of the respondent – Bank is contrary to the rule governing the loan 2 sanctioned from the provident fund account. Mr. R.S. Pradhan senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 submits that in similar circumstances some other employees were permitted to represent the matter before the respondent no. 5 since the establishment and the maintenance of the provident fund was allowed to the bank on being exemtion granted by the respondent no. 5 under the statutory provision. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of his claims, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 5 In such view of the matter, in case such representation giving specific claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents in support of the claim, the above respondent shall consider each of the claims raised by the petitioner in his representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances of the petitioner could be settled at the earliest. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)