Jiya Tant vs State Of Bihar And Others

Vikash Jain, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference.

The present writ petition has been filed for “a direction to the respondents to calculate the amount of General Provident Fund of the petitioner

and to make payment of balance amount of General Provident Fund accumulation together with statutory rate of interest till the date of payment as

well as penal interest on account of inordinate delay, laches and negligence on the part of Respondents for non-payment of the same.â€​

At the outset itself, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement at the Bar that the grievance of the petitioner has since been redressed and

the amount of General Provident Fund (GPF) has been paid to him during pendency of the writ petition. However, the petitioner claims interest for

delayed payment of the amount of GPF.

None appears on behalf of the respondents when the matter is called, despite a link for the video conference having been sent through SMS/email.

Having regard to the statement made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the grievance of the petitioner already stands redressed with

regard to payment of the GPF amount, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate representation before

the concerned authority, raising his claim for payment of interest. If any such representation is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the

same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law after grant of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

It is made clear that in view of the ongoing lockdown and Covid-19 pandemic, the concerned authority shall be at liberty to hear the petitioner

through video conference and any correspondence between the parties may be made through email. To enable the same, the petitioner undertakes to

furnish his mobile number and e-mail ID to the concerned authority without delay.