Tapeshwar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3187 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11651 of 2013 ====================================================== Tapeshwar Prasad, Advocate Son of Late Ambika Prasad Resident of Mohalla-Vishnupuri, Ram Lakhan Singh Path, Chitkohra, Police StationGardanibagh, Town & District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mr. Ravi Verma, Principal Secretary, Industries Department, New Secretariat, Patna

3. Mr. Shailesh Thakur, Director, Industries Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. Mr. B. Rajendra, Managing Director, Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation, Indira Bhawan, Boring Canal Road, Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arbind Kumar, Adv.

For the State Shilpa Singh, G.A.-12 Abhanjalli, AC to GA-12 For BSIDC : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv. Mr. Alok Chandra, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2018 Amount of Rs. 21,250/- only towards balance of Leave Encashment is paid to the petitioner through cheque dated 09.05.2018. Photostat copy of aforesaid cheque has been brought on record. The above stated cheque is received by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

It is admitted case of the parties that except provident fund, all the dues of the petitioner have already been paid. So far as provident fund is concerned, learned counsel

Patna High Court MJC No.3187 of 2014 (11) dt.20-06-2018 2/2 appearing for the Corporation submits that except the period of deputation, the statement of provident fund of the petitioner has already been prepared and so far as period of deputation is concerned, the State Government has not provided the details of deduction including interest and that is the reason, the statement of aforesaid period could not be prepared.

Learned counsel appearing for the State seeks four weeks time to collect the necessary information.

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation should hand over relevant documents to learned counsel of the State so that learned counsel of the State could collect the required information within reasonable time.

However, this matter is pending since the year 2014 and almost all the payment of the petitioner has already been made except the amount of provident fund and, therefore, I do not think it proper to keep this matter pending further. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to opposite parties to ensure the payment of provident fund of the petitioner within three months, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U