Rakesh Khanra vs Regional Provident Fund ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4152 Cal

  14
06.07.2023
 mb



              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
             CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                      APPELLATE SIDE

                       W.P.A. No 15146 of 2023

                       Rakesh Khanra
                             Vs.
        Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

                 Mr. Oindri Chowdhury,
                 Mr. Narayan Chandra Das,
                 Mr. Ashok Kumar Chowdhury
                                 ...for the petitioner

                 Ms. Aparna Banerjee
                                ...for the P.F. Authority

                 Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee
                                ...for the respondent no.3

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on

record.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner was a nominee of 20 per

cent of the contributory provident fund of the deceased

uncle of the petitioner, namely, Late Ganesh Khanra.

However, the petitioner came to know that the

entire amount lying in such fund was disbursed by the

respondent no. 3/employer in favour of the private

respondent no. 7, Smt. Sandhya Khanra.

It is contended that the private respondent no. 7

is an employee of the respondent no. 3 itself and earns

a handsome income from such employment. As such,

it is prayed that the respondent no. 3 be directed to

disburse the amount of 20 per cent out of such

provident fund to the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in

particular respondent no. 3, takes an objection to the

maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that

the nominee of an account is at best the 'receiving

hands' and does not have any beneficial interest or any

legal or fundamental right, the violation of which can

call for interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.

3 cites the judgment in Shipra Sengupta vs. Mridul

Sengupta & Ors., reported at (2009) 10 SCC 680, where

it was observed by the Supreme Court that nomination

does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee.

Although the context of such judgment, factually, was

somewhat different from the present case, the ratio laid

down therein applies to the present case. That apart,

it is well-settled that a nominee is the receiving hand

and does not have any further right in the amount

claimed.

Secondly, the respondent no. 3 has also taken an

objection to the belated filing of the writ petition.

Although in the year 2009, the father of the petitioner,

on a query by the petitioner's father, had been

intimated clearly that the petitioner was not entitled,

as a nephew, to have any right in the provident fund of

the deceased, the petitioner waited till the year 2023 to

prefer the instant writ petition.

Upon hearing the parties, it is clear that the

inordinate delay occasioned by the writ petitioner

cannot be condoned. To seek equity, the petitioner

must also do equity, which has not been done in the

present case due to the inordinate delay in filing the

writ petition.

That apart, although a wrong was undoubtedly

committed by the respondent no. 3 in not disbursing

20 percent of the amount-in-question to the present

petitioner as a nominee of the deceased employee, all

wrongs do not call for interference under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

In the present case, it has been rightly contended

by the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner does not

have any interest in the corpus of the amount now

claimed. The only interest of the petitioner was as a

nominee. Such stage having been bypassed by the

respondent no.3/employer, albeit irregularly, and the

amount having been disbursed to the rightful legal heir

of the deceased employee, the same does not furnish a

right to the petitioner to prefer the instant writ petition.

Hence, in view of the above observations, there is

no cause of action for interfering in the present writ

petition.

Accordingly, W.P.A. No 15146 of 2023 is disposed

of without any interference with the disputed action.

It is made clear that nothing in this order shall

prevent any legal heir of the deceased employee,

Ganesh Khanra, in claiming their dues in due process

of law before a competent civil court.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)