IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3276 of 2006 KAUSHAL KUMAR TEWARY SON OF LATE RAM KRISHNA TIWARI, RESIDENT OF BORING PATLIPUTRA ROAD, OPPOSITE SULABH BHAWAN, P.S – SHRI KRISHNA PURI, DISTRICT – PATNA - 800013 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUMSECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, PROVIDENT FUND (FINANCE DEPARTMENT) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PANT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 04. 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 31st of January 1998 as Superintending Engineer from the Road Construction Department, although other retiral dues has been paid, however, the payment on account of G.P.F. was not paid and as such, petitioner filed the present writ application. It is submitted that during pendency of this writ application the amount of Rs. 7 lacs was being paid, however, the amount being not correct and a sum of Rs. 8 lacs and odd was paid as per sanction order 2 dated 14.11.2006 vide Annexure- C and an additional sum of Rs. 4,47,853/- was found payable which was paid to the petitioner as per sanction order dated 15.07.2010 vide Annexure- E series to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. It is submitted that still there remains mistake in the calculation of the GPF amount since the admissible interest as permissible at the relevant time was not correctly calculated as a result of which the petitioner has not been paid full and correct amount of GPF. Learned counsel for the State submits that although according to the calculation of the respondent no. 4, petitioner has been paid full and correct amount. However, in case, petitioner bring it to the notice of the respondent no. 4 of any discrepancy as alleged in the matter of deduction in the year 1995 -96 and the applicable interest after his retirement i.e. on 31st of January 1998. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid claims with regard to re-calculation of GPF amount, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 4 stating details of his claims In view of the above, in case such representation 3 stating details of unpaid claims towards if any, is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim with regard to the calculations of deductions and the interest thereon as permissible under the rules, the representation of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation so that the grievances in this regard of the petitioner may finally be settled without delay and the admitted dues if any found payable may also be paid to the petitioner. However, upon consideration, in case the claim or part of the claim is found not payable, the same may be informed to the petitioner with reasons in support thereof which may be communicated to the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)