IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2447 of 2007 ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Ram Sukhit Roy .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== 2 02-09-2011 Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner has not been paid full amount of the provident fund dues. It is submitted that petitioner was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,88,440/- as G.P.F. amount till 21st of December 2000 whereas he has been paid a sum of Rs. 2,48,107/- and as such, the balance amount of Rs. 40,333/- has remained to be paid. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the District Provident Fund Officer submits that on perusal of paragraphs 3 and 6, it would appear that for the balance amount, authority slip was issued by the District Provident fund Officer, Sitamarhi in favour of the Headmaster of the concerned school where the petitioner was a Teacher. Since the payments have been made by taking the aforesaid steps and the dispute remains with regard to the final calculation of the provident fund, I am not inclined to proceed in the matter. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of. However, if petitioner finds that there is some discrepancy in the calculation, it will be open for him to bring it to the notice of the concerned authority, Sitamarhi with specific details so as to find out a correct balance amount payable. Upon calculation, if any, further amount is payable, the district provident fund Officer, Sitamarhi may issue authorization for payment of the further amount, if any ,found payable. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)