06/ 1st April 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2769 of 2009 BACHA PRASAD, SON OF LATE JANAK PRASAD, R/O MOHALLA-KASHI BAZAR, P.O.AND P.S.BHAGWAN BAZAR, DISTT- CHHAPRA………………………………...PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU K.C.SAHA, AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD (REPEALED), THRU ITS ADMINSTRATOR DR.B. RAJENDRA, PANT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. DR. B.RAJENDAR, ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, (REPEALED), PANT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA………………CONTEMNOR/OPP.PARTIES. ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad For State:- Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, SC-21 ---------- Heard the parties. 2. The writ court passed an order on 30th January 2009 contained in Annexure-1 and directed the Opposite Parties to ensure that the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner towards GPF are deposited in the proper account expeditiously preferably within three months. This order was passed on the premise that since June 2006 the money deducted from the salary towards GPF had not been deposited in the proper account. The 2 grievance was taken to be a common grievance of the employees of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board which was dissolved by an Act of the Legislature in the year 2007. 3. From Annexure-A to the counter affidavit it is evident that petitioner’s service was absorbed in the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board with an stipulation that like the other employees of the Board, the petitioner shall be entitled for the benefits toward contributory provident fund/gratuity/group insurance and other service benefits. 4. Clearly, the GPF was not applicable to the petitioner since June 2006 after his service was absorbed in the Board. 5. According to learned counsel for the State, there have been some mistake in mentioning the facts in the supplementary show-cause filed on behalf of O.P. Nos 2 and 3. It has been pointed out that in paragraph-1, a reference has been made to statement contained in Annexure-C according to which from May 2006 till March 2007 an amount of Rs.40,734/- fell due as contribution from the Board towards CPF payable to the petitioner and 3 that amount has been allegedly paid by a cheque dated 13.03.2010. With reference to statements made in paragraph-2 of the supplementary show-cause it has been submitted that Rs.1,55,384/- does not relate only to payment of CPF on revised scale from 1.4.2007 to 1.9.2008 rather in includes arrear of salary also and the correct figures are mentioned in Column No.9 of Annexure-D in respect of contribution of the Board towards CPF payable to the petitioner. 6. According to learned counsel for the State the documents contained in Annexure-C and D are correct and therefore mistake in statements of facts in paragraph-2 may be ignored. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that petitioner has not received his lawful claim on account of CPF and he also disputes receipt of any cheque for the amount of Rs.40,734/- 8. From the order of the writ Court it is clear that no decision was arrived at as to what would be the amount payable to the petitioner towards GPF. In absence of any such adjudication, it would not be proper for this Court to enter into the controversies of facts between the 4 parties as to whether the calculation of CPF dues of the petitioner is correct and proper or not and whether the entire dues have been paid to him or not. 9. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of contentions raised on behalf of the parties, this contempt application is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that if he has any further claims to any sum of money towards CPF, in that event, he may file a detailed representation before the Agriculture Production Commissioner who is representing the State of Bihar who shall look into the representation and dispose of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within two months of filing of the representation. 10. If any amount is found payable towards CPF the same shall be paid to the petitioner soon after two months. 11. In case, the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision taken on his representation, he would be at liberty to pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. perwez/ ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)