IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3104 of 2006 SUMANTRA KUMAR CHATTERJEE Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS. ----------- 3. 19.4.2010. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, learned Junior Counsel to Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel representing the Board is present. The petitioner is a dismissed employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board and has filed the writ petitioner for payment of his provident fund amount admissible to him with admissible interest thereon. From the pleadings on the record of the proceedings it appears that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case for misappropriation of certain amounts and was removed from service vide order passed in the departmental proceeding on 16.11.1999. The petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order of penalty which was dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and on filing of the appeal, it was also dismissed vide order passed on 6.11.2003. The order passed by the appellate court was never challenged by the petitioner and which has become conclusive and binding. The petitioner superannuated on 16.11.1999 and thereafter has filed the present writ petition 2 for the relief stated above. Although a counter affidavit is being filed today on behalf of the Board but there is no response as to the claim of the petitioner for payment of the provident fund amount. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 the Joint Secretary, General Establishment Department, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna to examine the claim of the petitioner for payment of the provident fund amount together with admissible interest thereon in the back-drop of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and if the same is found admissible to the petitioner, it should be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order together with up to date statutory interest admissible thereon. However, in case the said amount is not found admissible to the petitioner, it should be disposed of by a speaking order. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)