Delhi High Court
Sh. Ramesh Chander Pandey vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 6 April, 2018
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 06.04.2018
+ W.P.(C) 3331/2018 & CM APPL. 13117/2018
SH. RAMESH CHANDER PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Jaideep Singh, Advocate.
versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (THROUGH
REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI-CENTRAL) AND ANR....Respondents
Through: Mr.Keshav Mohan and Mr.Piyush
Choudhary, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 13117/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3331/2018
1. On an advance copy of the writ petition having been served,
Mr.Keshav Mohan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent No.1.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2 during the period from
July 2009 to March 2016 and he was allotted Provident Fund
Membership No.DL/19503/343 along with Universal Account
No.100304497972 and Account No.DL/CPM/0019503/000/0000343.
3. The petitioner has resigned from service of respondent No.2 on
31.03.2016.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted an application for
release of his provident fund dues on 07.07.2017 which was rejected
by respondent No.1 by a communication dated 08.08.2017 for the
reason that claim is not attested by the Establishment i.e. respondent
No.2. Admittedly, on 07.11.2017 the petitioner submitted another
requisite composite claim form duly filled in and attested by the
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Defence Colony, New Delhi
where the petitioner has been having his Saving Bank Account
No.33181026222 pursuant to the instructions/guidelines laid down by
respondent No.1. Unfortunately, this claim was rejected by the
respondent No.1 as per communication dated 26.12.2017 for the
reasons "form not traceable".
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly admitted that this
form duly verified and signed by the Branch Manager of the State
Bank of India was received by the respondent No.1. However, he
submits that this petition may be treated as a representation with the
direction to the petitioner to pursue his application through his
employer i.e. respondent No.2.
6. There is no force in the submission of learned counsel for
respondent No.1. When the requisite form duly filled in and attested
by the concerned Branch Manager as per the general instructions of
respondent No.1 has been received by respondent No.1, there was no
justification at all with the respondent No.1 to withhold the hard
earned money of the petitioner by taking casual and whimsical
approach.
7. In the circumstances, respondent No.1 is directed to release the
provident fund dues of the petitioner within four weeks by crediting
the due amount in his said Saving Bank Account with State Bank of
India.
8. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2018
DKB
