Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union Through Its Secretary, Bharat Choudhary v. Dr. V.P. Joy, Provident Fund Commissioner,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3271 of 2024 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.338 of 2018 ====================================================== Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union through its Secretary, Bharat Choudhary S/O Indra Deo Choudhary Resident of VillageRam Basantpur, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Dr. V.P. Joy, Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization.

2.

Mr. M.K. Jha, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office -1 R Block, Patna.

3.

Mrs.Manisha Sinha, Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Regiona Office -2 R Block, Patna.

4.

Mr. Manish Mani, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office R Block, Patna.

5.

Mr.R.K.Sinha, Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Surya complex Laxmi, chock, Muzffarpur.

6.

Mr. P.K.Pal. Chairman-cum-M.D., Bihar State Power Holding Company, LTD. Vidhyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha No.1, Advocate For the O.P. No. 1 to 5 :

Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate For the O.P. No.6 :

Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 04-04-2025 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The contempt petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2023

Patna High Court MJC No.3271 of 2024(3) dt.04-04-2025 2/2 based on the assertion made by the learned Advocate for opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 that there was a substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court.

3. Today, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks a modification of the order on the ground that it was only a substantial compliance of the order and few of the persons were left out of the benefit which would have accrued to them.

4. We are afraid, this cannot be a ground for modifying the order dated 13.04.2023.

5. The petitioner would have other remedies to agitate, should it be considered necessary.

6. In that view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ) (Harish Kumar, J) manoj/krishnaU