Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Kalwade vs Employee Provident Fund Organisation ... on 1 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5592 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAVINDRA KALWADE S/O GANPATRAO KALWADE,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED 302,
HIG SNEHDEEP APARTMENT, 38, NARAYANBAGH,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT. OF INDIA REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER REGIONAL
OFFICE, PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN-7, ARCE COURSE
ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:-
In the facts and circumstances of the present case the petitioner
humbly prays that this petition may kindly be allowed and by
issuing:
a. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other, the impugned action cancelling the
revised pension order of the petitioner be quashed.
b. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other, the respondent be directed to release the
revised pension along with its arrears in terms of the proviso
to section 11(3) of the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 as
was paid to the petitioner, but subsequently cancelled.
c. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other, the respondents be directed to pay
interest at the rate of 12% on the entire arrears amount of
pension wrongly withheld by the respondent.
d. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other, the respondent be directed to refund
excessive amount demanded and received in the name of
compounding interest on the entire difference amount.
Alternatively, the respondent be directed to pay compound
interest on the entire arrears of pension from the due date i.e.
18.03.2013 at the same rate on which repayment is demanded.
e. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other, the respondent be directed to pay
additional interest @ 12% on the entire excess amount
wrongly demanded and received from the petitioner.
f. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other.
g. Costs of this petition be allowed.
h. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, be awarded to the petitioner.
i. Appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of
mandamus or other, the order dated 16.5.2023 be quashed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the
present case is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by Coordinate
Bench at Jabalpur in WP No.14425/2021 (Shiv Prasad Soni vs. The
Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.) and other connected writ
petitions. The impugned order was quashed by the Coordinate Bench in view of
the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & Ors.
vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund
Organisation & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 809. It is also argued that after the said
judgment, the respondents filed Review Petition No.334/2023 (The Regional
P.F. Commissioner & Anr. vs. Rammani Tiwari) in the light of subsequent
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s). 8658-8659 of 2019 (The Employees Provident Fund Organisation
& Anr. vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.). After considering both the judgments, the
review petition has been dismissed with the following observation:-
35. Now, as has been held by Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta
(supra) that only adjustments are required to be made by the
Provident Fund Commissioner and that being not disturbed by
the Larger Bench of Supreme Court, there is no ground to
review the order of this Court dated 15.06.2022 passed in
Writ Petition No.14425/2021 and other connected matters.
3. Counsel for the respondent submits that against the order passed by
Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition and Review Petition, the respondents have
filed writ appeal before the Division Bench. However, no material is filed in
regarding to filing of appeal and stay by Division Bench.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of Shiv
Prasad Soni (supra) and in Review Petition No.334/2023 and the fact that the
said order is not stayed by Division Bench, the same is binding on this Court,
therefore, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed by
Coordinate Bench in WP No.14425/2021 and Review Petition No.334/2023.
The orders passed in the aforesaid cases shall apply mutatis mutandis in the
present case.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
