ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has remained pending for more than nine years since its institution in August 2006. Various orders passed during its pendency would be testimony to the contest that has gone between the respondent-Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation on the claim of GPF dues of employees like the petitioners. The Income Tax Department was also impleaded as party respondent earlier and had filed an affidavit giving justification of attachment of certain amounts lying in the accounts with the Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank at Ranchi and Hazaribagh for certain outstanding demand from the respondent-Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. 3. Considering the rival contention of the parties, which includes two Corporations and Income Tax Department, on the previous date, a detailed order was recorded which is self speaking and are reproduced hereunder: “Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation (JSFDC) was admittedly constituted with effect from 01.04.2002 vide Gazette Notification dated 23.03.2002. The provident fund dues of the employees of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation (BSFDC) which continued to function thereafter under the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation within the territories of Jharkhand, were transmitted to the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi Division through letter no. 55 dated 03.02.2005 of the Accounts Officer of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. These amounts were reportedly deposited in the accounts of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation maintained at Canara Bank at Hazaribagh and Punjab National Bank at Ranchi. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSFDC has urged that the provident fund dues of the employees related to the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation were remitted by the Provident Fund Trust created by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, of course in the respective bank accounts at Hazaribagh and Ranchi. 2. The Respondent-Income Tax Department has filed an affidavit after the previous order, stating that it was only prosecuting the demand against the assesse Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. The Income Tax Department, in realization of its outstanding dues from the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, attached the relevant bank accounts at Hazaribagh and Ranchi also for the purposes of discharge of income tax dues. The Income Tax Department, in realization of its outstanding dues from the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, attached the relevant bank accounts at Hazaribagh and Ranchi also for the purposes of discharge of income tax dues. The Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ranchi informed the Divisional Manager, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation through letter dated 23.03.2005 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 5 -Divisional Manager, MEPP, Ranchi about attachment by the Income Tax Department. The Chief Manager, Canara Bank also wrote on 16.09.2005 to the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Hazaribagh about the attachment notice issued by the Income Tax Department and requested him to vacate the notice within seven days, failing which they would be compelled to remit dues as per the Income Tax letter dated 23.12.2004. This letter is enclosed to the rejoinder of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5-JSFDC, Ranchi to the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 7-BSFDC, Patna. 3. The bone of contention being made out between the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation and Bihar State Forest Development Corporation in substance is that the provident fund dues of the employees like the petitioners were deposited in the account maintained by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and therefore, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation could not have honoured such dues as assets and liabilities were still undivided between the Corporation. Bihar State Forest Development Corporation has taken the stand that after creation of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation with effect from 01.04.2002, all offices within the State of Jharkhand are being operated by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation and employees in those offices function under the JSFDC; their salary are also being paid by the JSFDC through their Controlling Authority and accounts of BSFDC are also operated by the concerned officer of JSFDC, may be in twin capacity. 4. Be that as it may, if petitioners fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation pursuant to its creation being the employees of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and have been working under the Controlling Authority of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation would become deemed competent authority of those employees in view of the provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act. In that case, the question is, whether the amounts transmitted by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation through letter dated 03.02.2005 of the provident fund dues of several employees working at Ranchi or Hazaribagh, were to be disbursed by the officials of Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation or not? The next question therefore arises whether such account was being operated by the officials of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation or not? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation cannot shirk its responsibility to pay the outstanding provident fund dues of the petitioners or any other such employees even after the same have been transmitted to the respective bank accounts through Annexure-B letter dated 03.02.2005 irrespective of the fact that whether those accounts of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation were attached in discharge of income tax dues by the Income Tax Department. The respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation would file a categorical affidavit on the subject whether the accounts in Canara Bank and Punjab National Bank respectively at Hazaribagh and Ranchi were being operated by the respective officials of the Corporation posted at Hazaribagh and Ranchi. 5. Canara Bank and Punjab National bank both are also directed to be impleaded as respondents in the array of respondents for which, necessary correction be carried out by the learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the day. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to serve copies of the pleadings along with the instant order on retainer counsel of the concerned Bank if they are so engaged by the concerned Bank in this Court or else, effect such service upon the concerned Branch office or the concerned Managers/competent authority of the respective Branch of Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank and file an affidavit to that effect within a period of two weeks. 6. Let the matter appear thereafter on 31.10.2015.” 4. Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank were also impleaded as party respondents. Affidavits has also been filed by the Punjab National bank, Argora Branch, Ranchi to the effect that accounts of the Corporation were operated by the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi till 14.03.2005. 6. Let the matter appear thereafter on 31.10.2015.” 4. Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank were also impleaded as party respondents. Affidavits has also been filed by the Punjab National bank, Argora Branch, Ranchi to the effect that accounts of the Corporation were operated by the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi till 14.03.2005. As per the affidavit of the respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, accounts in the Canara Bank at Hazaribagh were also operated by the Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division, Hazaribagh for the period 08.01.2003 to 28.02.2005. 5. It is not in dispute that Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation was constituted with effect from 01.04.2002 by Gazette Notification dated 23.03.2002. It is also not in dispute that amounts towards the GPF dues were deposited in the accounts of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation maintained by Canara Bank at Hazaribagh and Punjab National Bank at Ranchi by the Provident Fund Trust created by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. 6. The affidavit filed after the last order leave no room of doubt that those accounts though in the name of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, were operated by officers who were working under the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation after its constitution by Notification dated 23.03.2002. For some outstanding demands of the erstwhile Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Income Tax Department attached those accounts which reportedly contain the remittance of the provident fund dues of certain employees like the petitioners. The attachment was made while accounts were being operated by the officials of Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are working since the constitution of Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation as its employees. It therefore emerges that the provident fund dues of the petitioners and other similarly situated employees cannot be denied by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation on the pretext that the accounts were running in the name of Bihar State Forest Development Corporation in those two banks even after its creation in April 2002. 7. It is another question to be settled amongst the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation and Bihar State Forest Development Corporation whether the entire claim or part of it, is liable for adjustment between the two Corporations at the tine of final apportionment of assets and liabilities in terms of the provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act. 7. It is another question to be settled amongst the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation and Bihar State Forest Development Corporation whether the entire claim or part of it, is liable for adjustment between the two Corporations at the tine of final apportionment of assets and liabilities in terms of the provisions of Bihar Reorganization Act. This Court therefore does not make any comment upon the ultimate liability of either of the Corporations on that count. However, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation is obliged to pay the admissible provident fund dues of the petitioners whose provident fund amounts were remitted by the Provident Fund Trust in those two accounts i.e. in Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank at Ranchi and Hazaribagh. It is up to the petitioners to approach the competent authority under the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation for realization of the admissible provident fund amounts in favour of the individual persons which would be scrutinized by the competent authority and depending upon the admissibility, the same be released along with statutory interest in favour of the individual persons in accordance with law. 8. With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.