Kumar Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22240 of 2019 ====================================================== Kumar Baitha, Son of Late Dharam Chandra Baitha, resident of Vandana Kunj, Green Park Colony, Mangal Chowk, A.D.M. Road No.6, Khemni Chak,P.S.-Ram Krishna Nagar, Patna, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar (through the Chief Secretary), Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, P.S.-Sachivalaya, Patna.

2.

The Joint Commissioner, Accounts, Administrator Cum Director, G.P.F. Directorate, Pant Bhawan, P.S.-Kotwali, Patna. 3.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of BIhar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

4.

The Assistant Commissioner, G.P.F. Directorate, Office Situated at Pant Bhawan, Patna, P.S. Kotwali, Patna.

5.

The Under Secretary, Department of Law, Government of BIhar, Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Subodh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-03-2023 Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned AC to GP-3 for the State.

2. In the present writ application, the petitioner has sought for following relief(s):

"That this Writ petition is being filed for issuance of Writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to make payment of about 3 lacs of money which has remained due with Respondents No.2 to 4 because of wrong calculation of Provident Fund amount of the petitioner with 12% (twelve percent) interest from the date of last payment up to the period of remaining amount being paid."

Patna High Court CWJC No.22240 of 2019(6) dt.13-03-2023 2/2

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that the Provident Fund directorate has illegally calculated the provident fund amount payable to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, however, only Rs. 2,51,831/- has been paid to him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that such disputed question of fact cannot be entertained in the present writ jurisdiction.

5. Considering the submission of the parties and grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to make a representation giving details of the payment made by him from time to time in his G.P.F. account. The respondent No.4 the Assistant Commissioner, G.P.F. Directorate Office, Pant Bhawan, Patna is directed to calculate the total amount to be paid to the petitioner and interest incurred thereon applicable from time to time within a period of 15 days from the date of representation filed by the petitioner.

6. With the above observations and directions, the present writ application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U