Shiv Prasad Soni vs The Employees Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5827 MP

                                    1

          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     WP-14425-2021
 (SHIV PRASAD SONI vs THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND
                               OTHERS)

JABALPUR
DATED : 22.09.2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri J.K. Pillai, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

The reply on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has already been filed.

Issue notice to the respondent No.3 on payment of process fee within one week.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the interim relief.

Pressing the interim relief, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 29.01.2018 was passed by this Court in W.P. No.1543/2017, thereafter higher pension was granted to the petitioner but subsequently on the basis of the administrative instructions the higher pension has been stopped. He further submits that before the Supreme Court though the review is pending but there is no stay, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the higher pension in terms of the directions of this Court and that the Chhattisgarh High Court vide order dated 09.07.2020 passed in WPS No.2598/2020 has already granted interim relief of higher pension, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same.

Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that for some time between 2018 to 2021 higher pension was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Others but subsequently the Supreme Court has

entertained the review petition, hence a general administrative instruction has been issued to stop higher pension to all such employees and that now the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the matter and it is not a case of one employee but a number of employees have been uniformly treated. He has further submitted that the petitioner will be paid the arrears of the differential amount of pension if the petitioner succeeds in the petition but once the higher amount is paid then it would be difficult to recover it as there is no provision under the Act in respect of recovery and that the interim order was passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court before the reference was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Larger Bench. Even otherwise, the said interim order is not binding on this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already rejected the similar prayer for interim relief.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The same issue relating to grant of interim relief had come up in batch of petitions in the matter of M.D. Mishra Vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others in W.P. No.15297/2021 and connected batch of petitions wherein the Co-ordinate Bench while passing the order dated 13.09.2021 has considered the same arguments and has rejected the prayer for interim relief by directing as under :-

"Heard the counsel for petitioners as well as respondents.

Granting of interim relief will amount to final relief can be granted to petitioner in cases where withholding of interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself or by the time main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to petitioner though findings may be in his favour. Along with aforesaid

circumstance, there has to be prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of petitioner.

In the present case, if interim relief is not granted to the petitioners then same will not tantamount to dismissal of main petition. Respondents had submitted that they will grant all the arrears along with interest to petitioners if they finally succeed in review petition which means there will be no irreparable injury caused to petitioners if at this stage interim relief denied to them. Further Apex Court is seized with the matter and case has been referred to Larger Bench for consideration in review petition. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that more amount has been paid to petitioners than what has been deposited by them with respondents. Petitioners never raised any grievance when they were paid less pension. Respondents on their own granted more pension to petitioners in view of judgment passed by Apex court in R.C. Gupta (supra). There was no question of survival of petitioners when they were getting less pension and they did not raise any grievance. Therefore, it cannot be said that there will be question of survival of petitioners on reducing the pension.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that no irreparable injury will be caused to petitioners if interim relief is denied to them. If finally petitioners succeed in review petition then they will get all the benefits for which they are entitled. Question of survival or violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India is only hypothetical in these cases. Petitioners were managing themselves when they were getting less pension. Reduction of pension may cause some inconvenience but that inconvenience is not life threatening.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for grant of interim relief is rejected."

Hence, having regard to the above order, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of higher pension by way of interim relief. The

record further reflects that by the order dated 29.01.2018 passed in W.P. No.1543/2017 the Single Bench of this Court in the case of the petitioner had only directed the respondents to decide the representation. The entitlement of the petitioner to get the benefit was not decided by this Court by the said order.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.02.2021 in SLP (Civil) Nos.8658-8659/2019 in the matter of The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & another Vs. Sunil Kumar B & others while entertaining the SLPs has directed that no contempt application seeking implementation of any of the orders passed in the four categories of matters mentioned therein shall be taken up by any Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has fairly stated before this Court that if the petitioner finally succeeds in this matter then entire arrears will be paid to the petitioner. He has pointed out that if the petitioner fails then the recovery will be difficult, hence the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner is getting the pension at the old rate.

In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no case for grant of any interim relief is made out.

The prayer for interim relief is accordingly rejected. List after four weeks.

(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE DV

Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2021.09.22 17:19:07 +05'30'