Patna High CourtCWJC/13521/2015disposed

Anjana Kumari Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-22Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13521 of 2015 =========================================================== Anjana Kumari Sinha, wife of Late Surendra Prasad Sinha, resident of villageKhandpur, P.O. Kawadpur, P.S.- Suryagarha, District- Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Programme Officer, Munger.

3. The District Superintendent of Education, Munger.

4. The District Provident Fund Officer, Munger.

5. The Accountant General, Bihar at Patna.

6. The Post Master, Munger.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the State :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, S.C. 23 Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate For the Accountant General :

Mr. Ram Yash Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and Accountant General.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for a direction to pay interest on Provident Fund.

3. Learned counsel for the State pointed out from the counter affidavit that payment of interest on GPF has been paid to the petitioner and further the Provident Fund amount has also been paid with interest as admissible in law. He further submitted that even the amount in the suspense account has been paid with interest till 31.05.2016.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13521 of 2015 dt.22-05-2017 2/2

4. A copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State had been served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 19.07.2016, in which the aforesaid stand has been taken. There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.

7. However, if still anything remains, the petitioner is at liberty to move before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U