IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1284 of 2003 YOGENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : None For the Opposite party Nos.: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Standing 2 & 3 Counsel-XXI For the Accountant General : Mr. L.P.K.Rajgrihar, Additional Standing Counsel ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 25th July, 2008. None appears for the applicant. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel-XXI appears for Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. L.P.K Rajgrihar, Additional Standing Counsel appears for the Accountant General. 2. On 17th March, 2003, the writ petition filed by the petitioner with regard to non-payment of part of post-retirement benefits came to be disposed of by the following order: - “Learned Government Pleader placed on record his counter affidavit and submits that all the post-retirement benefits including the general provident fund have been sanctioned for payment and will be released soon. Let the same be done promptly. The petitioner is entitled to interest on the provident fund till the date of payment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order has not been complied with and due post-retirement benefits - 2 - including the general provident fund has not been given. 4. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have responded to this contempt application. In their show-cause, particularly paragraph 4, it has been stated thus: - “4. That a detailed calculation chart for payment of G.P.F. amount with interest has been obtained from District Provident Fund Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah, vide his letter number 343 dated 08.06.2007. From perusal of calculation chart it would be evident that authority slip of Rs.1,06,923/- was arrived at including the interest till July 2003 and authority slip of Rs.3,15,441.00 was also inclusive of interest rate.” 5. It is, thus, seen that an amount of Rs.3,15,441/- along with interest has been paid. The petitioner or his counsel has not appeared to controvert this fact. 6. We are, thus, satisfied that nothing further needs to be done in this contempt application. 7. M.J.C. stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-