High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md.Sohailuddin vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 29 June, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Md.Sohailuddin vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 29 June, 2010
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CWJC No.1862 of 2007
                                  BHARAT KUMAR SHARMA .
                                             Versus
                               THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
                                               with
                                   CWJC No.2295 of 2007
                                  MAHESH PRASAD YADAV .
                                             Versus
                               THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
                                               with
                                   CWJC No.2346 of 2007
                                      MD.SOHAILUDDIN .
                                             Versus
                               THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS .
                                           -----------

For the petitioner :- Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma,
Advocate
Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the State :- Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh
AC to GA – 5
Mr. Shashi Kant Singh
AC to GA – 6.

               For the Board         :- Mr. Purnendu Singh
                                        Advocate.
                                        Mr. A. B. Sinha
                                        Advocate.


11.   29.06.2010                    A supplementary rejoinder to the counter affidavit

has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also

the respondent – Board.

The grievances of the petitioners is that petitioners

have not been paid their correct amount of provident fund’s dues for

the reasons that Board failed to deposit the contributions in the

provident fund account of the petitioners month to month with the

result that petitioners were deprived of getting the interest to the

extent of each contributions at the rate available at the material time.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
2

– Board submits that petitioner had earlier filed a representation which

was considered but the grievance raised therein was not tenable.

In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that for expeditious disposal of their claims as

highlighted in the writ application, petitioners propose to file a

separate representation before the Secretary of the respondent- Board

enclosing the copy of the relevant documents if any, in support of

such claim along with certified copy of the present order within a

period of four weeks from today.

In case such representations are filed, the Secretary of

the respondent – Board shall consider and dispose of the

representation by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law

expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of

such representation.

Upon consideration, if any, amount of the petitioners

is found payable, the same may also be paid preferably within a period

of two months.

The order passed on such representation shall be

communicated to the concerned petitioners by post under registered

cover.

All the above writ applications are disposed of with

the above observations/directions.

Jagdish/                              ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)