Patna High Court
Sabita KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court directed the District Programme Officer to adjudicate the petitioner’s G.P.F. claim after a fresh representation is filed, rather than granting mandamus at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Sabita Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and education officials to pay the General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) amount of her mother, Indrawati Devi, with interest for the years 1965‑66 to 1976‑77. The respondents argued that a three‑member committee had already been constituted to collect evidence on the G.P.F. contribution and that the petitioner should file a fresh representation with supporting documents. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the lack of records necessitated the committee’s investigation, while the State counsel urged the petitioner to submit a fresh claim to expedite adjudication. The Court held that the petition could not be disposed by mandamus at this stage and directed the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani, to adjudicate the claim after the petitioner files a representation within four weeks. Upon receipt of the representation, the officer must consider the collected evidence and decide within twelve weeks, granting the benefit with statutory interest if justified. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a mandamus can be issued directing payment of the G.P.F. amount when the records are unavailable and a committee has been constituted.
- Whether the petitioner must file a fresh representation with supporting documents before the claim can be adjudicated.
Subjects
- mandamus
- G.P.F.
- General Provident Fund
- writ petition
- administrative law
- Bihar education department
- representation
- adjudication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1174 of 2022
======================================================
Sabita Kumari Daughter of Late Laxman Lal Das, resident of Madhubani
Town, Ward No. 6 (Near Babu Saheb Chowk), Police Station Madhubani,
District Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani.
4. The Treasury Officer, Madhubani.
5. The Head Mistress, Middle School Saurath, District-Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhas Ranjan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rajesh Kr. Sinha, Ac to Gp23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 30-01-2026 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s):-
“(A) A Mandamus
commanding the respondents for
payment of G.P.F. amount (of her
mother namely Indrawati Devi)
along with interest for the period
1965-66 to 1976-77.
(B) Any other relief or
reliefs for which petitioner may be
found entitled to in the fact and
circumstances of the present case
may kindly be granted to her.”
2. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the stand
taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, submits that due to non-
availability of the records in the office of the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.1174 of 2022(7) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani, for the period
which is claimed by this petitioner, a three man committee has
been constituted in the light of the Letter No. 1766 dated
16.12.2021 and Letter No. 662 dated 28.04.2022 of the
Directorate, Primary Education, under the Chairmanship of the
District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani vide
Memo No. 2242 dated 06.05.2022, for collection of evidences
regarding the contribution of G.P.F, which is said to have been
deposited in the post office.
3. It is next been submitted that authorities may be
directed to act upon the evidences, which are said to have been
collected after constitution of the Committee in question, and
accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner may be directed to
be adjudicated on the materials available with them and as also
by looking to the materials provided by the petitioner, if any.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits
that since committee has already been constituted for
adjudication of the claim of the petitioner and as such, the
petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation along
with supportive documents, which may be in possession of this
petitioner for facilitating early adjudication of his claim, and
timeline for disposal may also be framed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1174 of 2022(7) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
5. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds it
appropriate to direct District Programme Officer
(Establishment), Madhubani, to adjudicate the claim the
petitioner, for which an appropriate representation with
supportive materials shall be filed along with the copy of the
order, within a period of four weeks from today.
6. On filing of such representation, the evidences
which are supposed to have been collected under his
Chairmanship and as also by referring to the materials, which
may be brought on record by the petitioner, for ventilation of the
grievances, the same shall be considered and appropriate
necessary orders shall be passed by adjudicating the claim of
this petitioner within a further period of 12 weeks from the date
of filing of such representation, and if the claims on
adjudication is found justified, then benefits shall also be
extended with the statutory interest, within the same time.
7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.