Delhi High Court
Shovan Patra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 October, 2020
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th October, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 7600/2020
SHOVAN PATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Siddharth & Mr.Amit Kumar
Aggrwala, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Puneet Garg, Advocate
for R-7, 8 & 9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
: D.N.PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for the
following prayers:
"a) To allow the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) of
the petitioner with. a direction to the Respondents to
modify the existing EPFO Software, in accordance with
the provisions of the EPF & MP Act 1952 and the
Schemes framed there-under, so that only eligible
employees of the covered establishments may be enrolled
as member of Employees' PF Scheme 1952 & Employees'
Pension Scheme 1995.
(b) To issue direction(s) to the Respondents for taking
decisions about the existing ineligible PF & EPS
members for retaining or for settling their accumulated
funds lying with EPFO with specific justifications in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
Location:
Signing Date:12.10.2020
15:43:38
accordance with the Law. The decisions regarding
deceased ineligible PF/ EPS members whose leg-al heirs
had availed and/or are availing benefits from the EPFO
may also be considered sympathetically.
(c) To issue necessary direction(s) to Union of India/The
Central Government for / enhancement the ceiling of PF
wages from Rs. 15,000/- P.M. prescribed in Para 2(f) of
EPF Scheme 1952 to a specific limits based on present
inflation rate in the general interest of all
workers/employees, or (d) To pass any other direction(s)
to the respondents as this Hon'ble Court which may be
deemed fit and appropriate in the interest of justice."
2. It appears that the petitioner is an employee of the
respondent/institution, and holds the post of Accounts Officer. He appears to
have a difference of opinion with his superior officers about the
implementation of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1952"].
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged various violations of the
Act, 1952 and Schemes framed thereunder, which according to him, are
resulting in loss to the exchequer, including inter alia enrolment of excluded
employees and withdrawal of provident fund amounts contrary to the
existing Rules. The petitioner has also stated that certain remedial measures
are required to be taken, including by modification of the software system
employed by the respondent organisation. It further appears from the
narration in the petition that this petitioner has put an endorsement to this
effect before high ranking administrative officers of the respondents, but
they have taken a different view regarding the implementation of the Act,
1952. The petitioner then appears to have taken the matter up directly with
the highest levels in the respondent organisation, and has also submitted a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
Location:
Signing Date:12.10.2020
15:43:38
grievance with the Prime Minister's Office.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are several errors in the
implementation of the Act, 1952. It is also submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the existing software developed by the respondents for
becoming a member under the Act, 1952 has certain defects. Thus, the
petitioner is in search of modification of the software developed for
enrolling the employees as a member of Employees' Provident Fund
Scheme, 1952 & Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 of the respondents.
5. It appears that due to having a difference of opinion with the superior
officers, this petitioner has preferred the present public Interest Litigation
with a view to vindicate his position and/ or teach a lesson to the high
ranking administrative officers of the respondents. It ought to be kept in
mind that the administrative disputes of this nature resulting from a
difference of opinion between the petitioner and the superior administrative
officers of the respondents have to be resolved by existing administrative
procedures, and should not lead to filing of public interest litigations. There
are ways and means to convince the high ranking officers of the stand taken
by the petitioner, and for the modification of the software in question, if
necessary. Always the procedures adopted and software developed for any
functioning is subject to amendment, provided a decision to that effect is
taken at the appropriate administrative level. Learned counsel for the
petitioner was unable to point to any misfeasance or other mala fide on the
part of the superior officers of the respondent which have resulted in their
taking a position contrary to that of the petitioner.
6. A petition like the present one is not appropriately the subject matter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
Location:
Signing Date:12.10.2020
15:43:38
of a Public Interest Litigation at all. It is not desirable that an administrative
officer approaches the Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the view taken by his
superior administrative officers, whether to vindicate a position of which he
is convinced or to teach a lesson to the high ranking officer. There is no
allegation in the present case of any mala fides, or any supporting material,
for us to entertain the present public interest litigation. A public interest
litigation cannot be filed merely because suggestions of the officer have not
been accepted by the superior officers.
7. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Nonetheless,
the respondents may look into the existing procedures and practices and if
the need arises, an amendment in the same and/or a modification in the
software used by the respondent may be carried out in accordance with law,
rules, regulations and government policies applicable to the facts of the case.
8. We were inclined to impose costs upon the petitioner, to be deducted
from his salary, but at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, we
desist from doing so at this stage.
9. With these observations, this petition is dismissed, but without costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PRATEEK JALAN, J
OCTOBER 9, 2020/„hkaur‟
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
Location:
Signing Date:12.10.2020
15:43:38
