IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4287 of 2005 SRI RAJKESHWAR RAM S/o Late Ram Briksh Ram, Resident of Village-Mow, Post –Mow, Police Station-Tekari, District-Gaya (Bihar). Present Address: Flat no. 102, Rajmahal Apartment, Bahadurpur, Bazar Samiti Road No. 16, District-Patna. (Bihar) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Accountant-General (A&E) II, (Bihar and Jharkhand), Patna. 5. The Commissioner, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Commissioner, Saran, Chapra, Bihar. 7. The Director, Directorate of Provident Fund, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 8. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra. 9. the District Provident Fund Officer, Chapra. 10. The Deputy Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. For the State :- Himanshu Kumar Akela, A.C. to G.A. 5 For the Accountant General:- Ram Kinker Choubey, Adv. ************ 5 12.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court in its order dated 18.7.2005, 13.01.2010 and 11.02.2010 took note of two grievances of the petitioner. One in relation to pay fixation and pay protection of the petitioner since after his promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the light of the order dated 27.6.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4582 of 2003. The second grievance was 2 relating to dispute in calculation of the G.P.F. claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner as against his estimated claim of Rs. 16,03,282/- the authorities had released only an amount of Rs. 13,98,076/- towards his G.P.F. claims with admissible interest vide letter No. 740 dated 23.3.2004. Thereafter a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner enclosing a calculation chart placed at Annexure-11 series of the said affidavit demonstrating that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,03,282/-. In response to the said supplementary affidavit a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, Chapra and in paragraph 4 it has been stated that a further amount of Rs. 21,312/- was found payable to the petitioner and for which authority letter No. 53 dated 27.01.2010 has been sent to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department for release in favour of the petitioner. Copy of the authorization has been placed on record vide Annexure-A series to the said affidavit. It is thus stated that no further claim towards G.P.F. is found pending for payment. Learned counsel however, disputes 3 the position. In so far as other claim is concerned, appropriate explanation has been given in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5 today explaining the reasons for the said situation. It appears that the petitioner was never promoted to post of Chief Engineer. Further as no specific prayer has been made in this writ petition, in so far as the said issue is concerned, this Court expresses no opinion thereon. The petitioner if so advised, may raise his grievance before the authority/forum concerned. In so far as the amount of provident fund is concerned, the petitioner if he still feels aggrieved by the calculations aforesaid, he may raise his grievance before the appropriate authority concerned and who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )