Tripati Nath Sinha v. Sri G. D. Sinha, The Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1444 of 2018 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13743 of 2016 ====================================================== Tripati Nath Sinha son of Late Rameshwar Prasad resident of Mohalla Lallu Pokhar, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Sri G. D. Sinha, The Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office at Provident Fund Building R-Block, Road No. 6, Patna. 2.

Sri Sunil Kumar, The Assistant Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub- Regional Office, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur 3.

Sri Rajesh Pandey, The Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub- Regional Office, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the EPFO.

2. Pursuant to order dated 21.10.2019, Mr. Rajesh Pandey, the then Central Public Information Officer, Sub-Regional Office, Bhagalpur is present and has filed supplementary show cause. In the same, it has been stated that wrong information under the Right to Information Act earlier provided to the petitioner was on the basis of such information being put up before him and three persons were identified, who were responsible for furnishing such wrong information, out of which one has died and the

Patna High Court MJC No.1444 of 2018 dt.25-10-2019 2/2 remaining two persons were served show cause as to why proceeding be not initiated against them.

3. The Court hopes that such initiation against the concerned two persons would be taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously.

4. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Court finds that there has been no wilful or deliberate violation of the order dated 17.11.2017 passed in CWJC No. 13743 of 2016.

5. In view thereof, nothing remains in the present application and the same stands disposed off.

6. However, it goes without saying that if the petitioner finds any discrepancy or error in the records maintained by the EPFO, it shall always be open to him to move before the appropriate forum/authority, in accordance with law, for redressal of such grievance.

7. Personal appearance of the officer stands dispensed with.

8. The records kept with learned counsel for the EPFO may be returned to the concerned office.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U