Uday Shanker Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13284 of 2014 =========================================================== Uday Shanker Prasad son of Late Chaturbhuj Sahay resident of 304, Millennium Home Apartment, Sheikhpura, P.S. - Shastrinagar, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Department of Finance, Patna.

3. Director of Provident fund, Bihar, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Parishad, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Lala Purushottam Kr Rajgrihar, Advocate Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the B.L.C.

:

Mr. K.K. Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, G.A.1 Mr. Kumar Ravish, A.C. to G.A.1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-09-2016 By this writ petition, two grievances have been made by the petitioner. First, there is an admitted delay of over a year in payment of GPF amount and he was entitled to interest, whoever may be liable to pay is not his concern. The second is that there is a short payment of GPF. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that undoubtedly, so far as the first part is concerned, the delay cannot be denied, but the delay was on the part of Vidhan Parishad where the petitioner was employee. Whatever may be the reason, the delay being there. State is bound to pay the statutory delayed payment

Patna High Court CWJC No.13284 of 2014 dt.09-09-2016 interest.

It is, accordingly, directed the State to ensure payment of interest occasioned by delayed payment of GPF within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Secretary of the Vidhan Parishad. The second with regard to quantification of GPF, the petitioner may make a detail representation in this regard to the Provident Fund authorities.

Learned counsel for the State and the Vidhan Parishad point out that thrice earlier he has been given the same liberty and each time his representation has been rejected in speaking order.

Be that as it may, the authorities would examine and give a detail order which is understandable by him showing the reason why the payment as made is adequate and correct. This shall be done within six weeks of the representation being filed.

With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Rajeev/- U