ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After more than a decade of retirement of the petitioner when the entire payment of G.P.F. amount was not made to him this writ application had been filed on 22.07.2010 with a prayer that the petitioner should be given full payment of G.P.F. amount which for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted herein-below:- "1.(i) To make payment to G.P.F. deposited by petitioner in Account No. P.55493 while he was working in police Department C.I.D. w.e.f. years 64 to 75. (ii) To make payment of G.P.F. amount deposited by petitioner in Account No. BHR/Edn 187(New) while he was working on the post of Stadium Manager Moinul Haque Stadium Rajendra Nagar, Patna arising out of wrong calculation." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has submitted that now on account of subsequent events taking place, the issue of payment of full benefit of G.P.F. gets confined to firstly to payment of interest up to the date of payment over the amount of accumulation of the G.P.F. contribution of the petitioner in the Education Department, while working on the post of Stadium Manager. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that secondly the petitioner had also worked in the Police Department in the year 1964-75 and, therefore, his contribution in the G.P.F. deducted from the salary for the aforementioned period, as stands accounted for from the various documents of the offices of the Accountant General, Bihar Patna and Superintendent of Police, Bihar Patna, comes to Rs. 4933/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this amount has also not been paid only because there is tussle between the Police Department and the Directorate of G.P.F. Office as with regard to the amount being made available by the Police Department to the Directorate of G.P.F. Office. 5. As usual days, there is no assistance from the learned counsel for the State who has not even filed any counter affidavit. There is, however, appearance of learned counsel for the Accountant General, who would submit that if and when the authority slip is issued by the governmental authority, the required payment will be made. 6. 5. As usual days, there is no assistance from the learned counsel for the State who has not even filed any counter affidavit. There is, however, appearance of learned counsel for the Accountant General, who would submit that if and when the authority slip is issued by the governmental authority, the required payment will be made. 6. It is not in dispute that prior to the year 1976, the accounts of gazetted officer was being maintained in the office of the Accountant General and, therefore, whatever amount of G.P.F. contribution of the petitioner is available from the records of the Accountant General, should be treated as sacrosanct for computing the liability. Additionally, this Court would find that certain exercise has also been gone into by the Superintendent of Police, who vide his letter dated 17.01.2011 in his communication to the District Provident Fund Officer has made the issue clear. 7. Thus, this Court would direct the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna to ensure that on the basis of the materials on record, either by way of communication of the police department or the authenticated accounts statement of the office of the Accountant General with regard to contribution of G.P.F. from the salary of the petitioner for the period of 1964-75, a calculation should be made and the petitioner should be paid the said amount with statutory interest till the date of payment. 8. It is however made clear that now when the petitioner has raised this issue after a decade, whatever decision would be taken by the District Provident Fund Officer on the basis of the records shall be treated to be final inasmuch as the Government is never expected to keep the record of document of every deduction of Provident Fund amount even after 50 years. Infact every government record, as per the Record Manual, has to be preserved for a fixed period and thus whatever amount is, computed by the office of the Accountant General cannot be questioned by the petitioner on account of his abnormal delay in filing of this writ petition. 9. Infact every government record, as per the Record Manual, has to be preserved for a fixed period and thus whatever amount is, computed by the office of the Accountant General cannot be questioned by the petitioner on account of his abnormal delay in filing of this writ petition. 9. As to the second aspect, there will be no difficulty that whatever amount as has already been paid for the contribution made from the petitioner while he was working in the Education Department, the petitioner, therefore, will be entitled only for statutory interest till the date of payment and if he has not been paid such interest for the period of nine months, as is being stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same also must be paid to him by the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna. 10. This Court hopes and believes that subject to cooperation extended by the petitioner before the District Provident Fund Officer, Patna, his entire payment of G.P.F. shall be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.