Basudeo Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4394 of 2015 ====================================================== Basudeo Ram. Son of Late Ramdeo Ram. Resident of Mohalla - Sheopuri (Chitkohra), P.S.- Gardanibagh, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Main Secretariat, Patna.
2. District Magistrate, Patna.
3. Circle Officer (Anchal Adhikari) Paliganj, Patna.
4. Provident Fund Commissioner, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Collectorate, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp15 S K Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 31-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application as with regard to non-payment of G.P.F. amount emanates from the angle that probably the petitioner's salary for certain period was not paid. The question of payment of salary either its entitlement or payment being not within the purview of retirement benefit cases, this Court will not make any comment on the same and leave the petitioner to claim his payment of salary before the appropriate forum/ court.
Reverting back to the grievance of the petitioner for nonpayment of admitted amount of G.P.F. this Court would find it strange that the petitioner has been made to suffer on account of some wrong information given by the Anchal Adhikari, Paliganj
Patna High Court CWJC No.4394 of 2015 (2) dt.31-03-2015 and inaction on the part of the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna. This Court is being repeatedly informed by the Director, Provident Fund, that now almost all the amount of provident fund has been updated and here is the case where the District Provident Fund Officer is again shifting the liability on the Anchal Adhikari that he has not given the correct information. Such stand of the District Provident Fund Officer in his letter seems to be contrary to the statement being made before this Court by the Director, Provident Fund in C.W.J.C.No. 3165/2013.
Be that as it may, this Court would find that for no valid and justified reason the admitted amount of G.P.F. of the petitioner has been withheld and therefore, this Court would direct both the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna as also the Anchal Adhikari, Paliganj to ensure that whatever has to be done in respect of payment of admitted amount of G.P.F. of the petitioner must be done at their level within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order so that the petitioner does get at least the admitted amount of G.P.F. within a period of three months, of course with statutory interest as prescribed under the G.P.F. Rules. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/- U
Patna High Court CWJC No.4394 of 2015 (2) dt.31-03-2015