IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2753 of 2006 TIRTH NARAYAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Saket Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. P.K.Verma, A.A.G.-XI ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 17th July, 2008. The petitioner raised his grievance with regard to post retiral dues by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3772 of 2001. The said writ petition has been disposed of on 22nd March, 2001, in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Mostt. Rukmini Devi v. The State of Bihar, 1996(2) PLJR 348. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the full retiral dues has not been paid, particularly the due amount under his provident fund account. 3. The District Provident Fund Officer has shown his cause and in paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the following statement has been made: - “4. That it is humbly submitted that the order passed by the Hon’ble Court so far the answering opposite party is concerned stands duly complied as in connection with the connected writ application payment of retiral benefits under different heads had duly been made to the petitioner. 5. That it is humbly submitted that with regard to - 2 - the grievance raised by the petitioner to non furnishing of Calculation Chart with regards to G.P.F. amount as it is evident from the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure-5) it is most humbly submitted that the said grievance particularly relates to the concerned D.P.F.O. (District Provident Fund Officer) Patna. 6. That it is submitted that answering opposite party has duly requested to the concerned D.P.F.O. Patna vide letter no.4524 dated 6.12.2006 to verify the G.P.F. account of the petitioner and if still any amount stands further due authority against the same be issued immediately. The concerned D.P.F.O. has also been requested to issue the calculation chart pertaining of the G.P.F. account of the petitioner. 7. That from the facts stated here in above it will be manifest that there has been no wilful laches on the part of the answering opposite party. 8. That the deponent again tenders unqualified apology for any inconvenience causes to the Hon’ble Court.” 4. The detailed statement of deposit and advance concerning the petitioner’s provident fund account has been placed on record. 5. We are satisfied that the order dated 22nd March, 2001, cannot be said to have been deliberately disobeyed or intentionally breached. 6. No case for contempt is made out. 7. M.J.C. is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-