IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4341 of 2009 Yadunandan Prasad S/O Late Bhikhari Mahto R/O Vill- Mahmudabad, P.O. Saksohra, P.S. Bind, Distt. Nalanda. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri K.C. Saha S/O Not Known Agriculture Production Commissioner, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. B. Rajendra S/O Not Known, Director, Deptt. Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Ram Chandra Ram S/O Not Known, Joint Director, Deptt. Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. Ganesh Ram S/O Not Known District Agriculture Officer, Patna 6. Sri Mahendra Prasad S/O Not Known Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer (Extention), Danapur, Patna 7. Sri Madan Prasad, S/O not known, Director Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna 8. Sri Arun Kumar S/O Not Known District Provident Fund Officer, Patna 9. Sri Sumit Kumar, S/O not known, Treasury Officer Patna 10. Sri I.S.D. Dhariwal S/O Not Known, Accountant General, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. ……………. Opp.Parties ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Sudhir Kumar For the State : Mr.Nagendra Sharma, A.C. to G.P.8 For the A.G. : Mr.L.P.K. Rajgirihar, Adv. ---------------------------------- 11. 15/12/2011 Grievance of the petitioner now in this contempt application is that on the G.P.F. amount he has been paid interest of the first six months of retirement and from the date of his application, which the opposite parties claim that he had filed for the first time in the year 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had pleaded in 2 the writ application that he had filed an application within six months of his retirement for withdrawal of G.P.F. amount and the same was not denied by the respondents. Hence, he was entitled for payment of interest on the amount throughout, as his application remained pending during the period. In the alternative, he submits that even if it is assumed that the petitioner had not filed the application, since he was a non-gazetted employee, it was obligatory on the part of the controlling officer to fill up form, get it signed by the petitioner and make payment of his retrial dues. Writ application of the petitioner was disposed of in a batch. Hence, respondents did not get opportunity to file counter affidavit in the case. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the pleading of the petitioner that he had filed an application within six months of his retirement was correct. So far as second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceeding. 3 In the circumstances, the proceeding is dropped and contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue, raised by him in this application, in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)