Uday Krishan Lal v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.349 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5466 of 2011 ====================================================== Uday Krishan Lal Son of Ram Prasad Lal, Resident of Mohalla - Mahadevapur, P.S. - Masaurhi, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through Sri Prtyaya Amrit, Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraya Bhawan, Patna.

2.

Sri Prtyaya Amrit, Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwaraya Bhawan, Patna. 3.

Sri Hanuman Prasad Chaudhary, Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Saheb Alam, Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, North Bihar Road Circle, Muzaffarpur.

5.

Sri Lalit Kumar, Son of Late Jhagaru Ram, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Road Division Sheohar, District - Sheohar.

6.

Smt. Neelam Chaudhary, Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna.

7.

Sri Sawrath Kumar, Son of Mani Bhushan Dutta, District General Provident Fund Officer, Sitamarhi.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sushil Kumar (Gp22) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2023 Petitioner has filed the present contempt application alleging violation of the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5466 of 2021. By the aforesaid order this Court had disposed of the writ application with a direction to the respondent nos. 5 & 6 i.e. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Sheohar and the

Patna High Court MJC No.349 of 2022(4) dt.22-03-2023 2/2 Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Govt. of Bihar, Patna to pay G.P.F. amount for the work charge period to the petitioner within a period of three months.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties referring to the show - cause submits that G.P.F. amount for the work charge period has already been paid on 18.04.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that interest upon G.P.F. amount was payable to the petitioner starting from April, 2022 till the date of payment, which has not been paid.

I do not find any reason to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties in view of the fact that G.P.F. amount for the work charge period has already been paid. Accordingly this application is dismissed.

However, the petitioner, if so advised may file a representation before the authority for grant of interest for the period as aforesaid.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U