Kanhaiya Pd. Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5457 of 2011 =========================================================== Kanhaiya Prasad Tiwary @ Kanhaiya Pd. Tiwary, S/o Late Ram Naresh Tiwary, R/o Village - Belhi Khas, P.O. Belhi Khas, P.S. Kateya, District- Gopalganj (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mr. Lokesh Singh, The District Magistrate, Siwan, District Siwan
3. Mr. Anirudh Pd. Singh, The Director, Provident Fund, Directorate Provident Fund, Govt. of Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
4. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, The District Provident Officer, Siwan, District - Siwan .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G.-4 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The writ application filed by the petitioner was allowed on 22nd of June, 2011 wherein, Respondent No. 7 was directed to pass an order for payment of remaining amount of G.P.F. in case representation of the petitioner is found to be genuine. In pursuance of such direction, the stand of the respondents in the supplementary show-cause is that the petitioner was not posted in Sub Divisional Office, Motihari, Sadar during the years 1982-83 to November, 1994 as there is no record of payment of salary from the office of Sub-Divisional Office, Sikarhana, Dhaka. It is also stated that District Provident Fund Officer, Siwan has issued an authority
Patna High Court MJC No.5457 of 2011 dt.13-02-2017 2/2 letter of payment of Rs. 1,04,569/- on 14th of March, 2014 which is towards payment of G.P.F. dues of the petitioner. There is reference to earlier payments made from time to time of the G.P.F. dues. It has been stated that entire G.P.F. dues on the basis of deduction statement received from the District Provident Fund Officer has been made.
3. In view of the categorical assertion, I do not find that any further direction is called for. If the petitioner has any subsisting grievance, he is at liberty to avail such other remedy as may be available to the petitioner before an appropriate forum. 4.
The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) P.K.P.
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 16.02.2017 Transmission Date