Pralhad Tulshiram Bhagat vs Employees Provi. Fund Org., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 566 Bom

19-J-WP-7108-19                                                        1/4


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                     WRIT PETITION NO.7108 OF 2019


Pralhad Tulshiram Bhagat
aged about 66 years, Occ. Retired
employee of E.P.F.O. R/o Unnati Nagar,
Kaulkhed, Akola, Dist. Akola 444004                     ... Petitioner

-vs-

1. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
   Ministry of Labour and Employment,
   through Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
   Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
   New Delhi 110066

2. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
   Maharashtra & Chhattisgarh, Bhavishya Nidhi
   Bhawan, 341, Bandra (East), Mumbai 440051

3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
   132-A, Ridge Road, Raghuji Nagar,
   Nagpur 44 0009

4. Provident Fund Commissioner,
   Sub Regional Office, Raghuraj Arcade,
   Civil Lines, Akola 444 001                           ... Respondents

Shri B. Lahiri, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri H. N. Verma, Advocate for respondents.

                  CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : January 17, 2022

Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned

counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur refusing to 19-J-WP-7108-19 2/4

restore the proceedings filed by him seeking financial relief in the

matter of application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme -

MACP scheme. The original application as filed by the petitioner

came to be dismissed on 28/11/2018 for non-removal of office

objections. For seeking restoration of the proceedings, the petitioner

through his counsel filed a miscellaneous application. However that

miscellaneous application also came to be dismissed on account of

absence of the petitioner's counsel. In these facts the petitioner has

filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the

original application was filed on 11/04/2017 the office objections

remained to be removed. On 28/11/2018 the original application was

thus dismissed for want of prosecution. While seeking restoration of

those proceedings the office objections were duly removed but when

the application was placed before the Tribunal, the counsel

representing the petitioner could not remain present. On this count

the subsequent order dated 24/07/2019 dismissing the restoration

application came to be passed. It is submitted that the petitioner being

a retired employee seeking relief of financial up-gradation, he ought to

be granted an opportunity to substantiate such prayer on merits. For

the fault of the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner may not be 19-J-WP-7108-19 3/4

penalized. It is thus prayed that the proceedings be restored for

adjudication on merits.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

aforesaid prayer by filing reply. It is stated that since beginning the

petitioner was not serious in prosecuting the original application. An

opportunity was infact granted by the Tribunal on 20/06/2019 while

deciding the restoration application but that opportunity was also not

availed by the petitioner. Since there is delay in approaching this

Court for seeking restoration of the proceedings, it is submitted that no

relief be granted to the petitioner.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the documents on record. It is seen that the petitioner

approached the Tribunal on 16/04/2018 by filing the original

application and sought benefit under the MACP scheme. That original

application was dismissed on 28/11/2018 on account of failure to

remove office objections. It is true that the petitioner moved an

application for restoration but when that application was taken up, the

counsel representing the petitioner was absent. In the process, the

contention of the petitioner that the office objections had been

removed could not be considered. We find that the petitioner being 19-J-WP-7108-19 4/4

a retired employee had approached the Tribunal seeking financial up-

gradation under the MACP scheme. The prayer as made requires

adjudication on merits. The proceedings have been dismissed for non-

removal of office objections which cannot be solely attributed to the

petitioner. In the interests of justice we are inclined to grant one

opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to agitate the original

application on merits.

In view of aforesaid, the order dated 24/07/2019 dismissing

the miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the original

application is set aside. Similarly the order dated 28/11/2018

dismissing the original application for want of prosecution is also set

aside. Original Application No.2250/2018 is restored to file for its

adjudication on merits. The objections in the original application, if

any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The

Tribunal shall consider the original application on its own merits and

in accordance with law. All points raised in this writ petition on merits

are kept open.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

                               (Anil L. Pansare, J.)               (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)


Digitally signed byASMITA
ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR
Signing Date:18.01.2022
                      Asmita
14:42:20