Allahabad High Court
Sardevsingh vs Shambhu Nath Chaubey, Secretary And 2 ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66330
Court No. - 1
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 67 of 2023
Applicant :- Sardevsingh
Opposite Party :- Shambhu Nath Chaubey, Secretary And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Narain Rai,Satyadeo Shamra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Jagdish Pathak,Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Satyajit Mukerji
AND
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 71 of 2023
Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh
Opposite Party :- Shambhu Nath Chaubey, Secretary / Mantry And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Narain Rai,Satyadeo Shamra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Jagdish Pathak,Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Satyajit Mukerji
AND
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 73 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Awadh Giri
Opposite Party :- Shambhu Nath Chaubey, Secretary/Mantry, Regional Sri Gandhi Ashram And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Narain Rai,Satyadeo Shamra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Jagdish Pathak,Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Satyajit Mukerji
AND
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 75 of 2023
Applicant :- Chhote Lal
Opposite Party :- Shambhu Nath Chaubey, Sectetary/ Mantry And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Narain Rai,Satyadeo Shamra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Jagdish Pathak,Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Satyajit Mukerji
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 67 of 2023 has been filed for disobedience of the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 18330 of 2018, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 71 of 2023 has been filed pleading disobedience of the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 13124 of 2018, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 73 of 2023 has been filed pleading disobedience of the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 10216 of 2018 and Contempt Application (Civil) No. 75 of 2023 has been filed pleading disobedience of the order dated 29.9.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 11520 of 2018.
Order dated 29.9.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 11520 of 2018 is reproduced below :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the office report dated 16 December 2020, notice upon the fourth respondent has been served.
Petitioner was an employee of the fourth respondent-Regional Sri Gandhi Ashram, Agra. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 4 June 2017. By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8 February 2018, passed by the fourth respondent, wherein, stand has been taken that having regard to the financial status of the organization, the retiral dues towards provident fund, gratuity cannot be released. A direction has been sought for payment of gratuity, provident fund, group insurance from the due date along with interest.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of second and third respondent, Employees Provident Fund Organization, U.P. it is admitted that petitioner was a employee of the fourth respondent and is entitled to the post retiral dues. It is further stated that the fourth respondent did not submit the statutory returns in respect of their employees for the recovered amount at Rs.5900660/-. The major portion of the EPF dues of Rs. 23160307/- is still not deposited by the fourth respondent. This Court in W.P. No. 25315 of 2017, ordered not to take coercive action against the responsible person (Shri Shambhu Nath Chaubey) i.e. fourth respondent. There are total 131 cases pending against the fourth respondent in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, filed by respondent no. 2 (RPFC-Agra) for non submission of statutory returns.
The stand taken by the respondents that due to financial difficulty the amount cannot be credited is untenable. It is not in dispute that petitioner was the employee of the fourth respondent and is entitled to retiral dues.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 8 February 2018 passed by the fourth respondent is set aside and quashed. The entire amount due to the petitioner, shall be released by the respondents within three months from due date along with interest @ of 6% per annum.
It will be open to the second and third respondent to recover the amount due from the fourth respondent, in accordance with law."
The other writ petitions were allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order dated 29.9.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 18330 of 2018 is reproduced below :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsels for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed today in Writ-A No.11520 of 2018 (Chhote Lal vs. State of U.P. and others).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order of date passed in Chhote Lal (supra). The entire amount due to the petitioner, shall be released by the respondents within three months from due date along with interest @ of 6% per annum."
Order similar to the order passed in Writ-A No. 18330 of 2018 were passed in Writ-A No. 13124 of 2018 and in Writ-A No. 10216 of 2018.
A compliance affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 67 of 2023 disclosing part compliance of the orders passed in the abovementioned writ petitions. However, it has been stated in the compliance affidavit that the pension claim has been processed and the pension shall be paid once the process is completed.
Today, the counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has obtained instructions and states, on the basis of his instructions, that pension claim of the applicant has been settled. However, it has been stated that the provident fund could not be paid because statutory returns have not yet been submitted by the opposite party No. 1.
A perusal of the order dated 29.9.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 11520 of 2018 shows that in the aforesaid case the second and third respondents, who were the officers of the Employees Provident Fund Organization were permitted to recover due amount from the employer of the applicants.
Apparently, the applicants have remedy to institute appropriate proceedings for their claim under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
For the aforesaid reasons, no purpose would be served to proceed further in the abovementioned contempt applications.
The contempt applications are disposed of.
Notices are discharged.
Let the files be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 29.4.2025
Anurag/-
