D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the father of the present petitioner expired on 21st February, 2000, the provident fund amount has not yet been paid to the petitioner and therefore, this writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) IT is also submitted that the father of the present petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 4, before his death. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that no claim has been raised by the petitioner before respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and if proper application in proper format, as required under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act') is preferred, it will be decided by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, without any loss of time and in accordance with the Act, 1952.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready and willing to go before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with proper application in proper format, as required under the Act, 1952, but, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that let a direction may be given to the respondents to decide such an application, preferred by the petitioner, within stipulated time.;