Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reginal Provident Fund Commissioner vs Dilip Acharya on 22 December, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 1110 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF LABOUR
GOVT OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN 7,
RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
RAVINDRA KUMAR DUBEY S/O SHRI LAXMINARAYAN DUBEY
OCCUPATION: RETD. 37, KALINDI KUNJ PIPLIYAHANA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 771 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
ANOOP DHAKETA D/O SHRI DHAKETA OCCUPATION: RETIRED
06 NARMADA NAGAR ANNAPURNA ROAD, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 842 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
OMPRAKASH KULKARNI S/O LATE KRISHNARAO KULKARNI
RETIRED 34 A VAISHALI NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 844 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
1. SHYAM KUMAR WAGDE S/O SHRI NARAYAN WAGDE 23 F/A
SCHEME NO. 78 SLICE NO. 05 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH CEO
PRADHIKAN BHAWAN 7 RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 845 of 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
3
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE 7 RACE
COURSE ROAD, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
PRAKASH CHAND JAIN S/O SHRI S.C. VYAS RETIRED 14 VIJAY
NAGAR, EX SCHEME NO. 54 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 906 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
1. ANIL KUMAR BUDDHIWANT S/O LATE SHRI N.M.
BUDDHIWANT OCCUPATION: RETIRED 43/1 BHAWANIPUR
COLONY ANNPURNA ROAD, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN,
TRACECOURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 909 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
4
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
1. DILIP ACHARYA S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA ACHARYA 276
LOKMANYA NAGAR KESAR BAGH ROAD, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN 7, RACE COURSE
ROAD, INDORE DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 910 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
1. PRADEEP VYAS S/O SHRI S.C. VYAS OCCUPATION:
RETIRED 360 DK 1 SCHEME NO. 74 C VIJAY NAGAR
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN 7 RACE
COURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 913 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
5
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF LABOUR
REGIONAL OFFICE PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN 7, RACE COURSE
ROAD INDORE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
CHANDRAKANT PATEL S/O AMBALAL BHAI SCHEME 114 PART 1
VIJAY NAGAR INDORE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 914 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
1. MEHMOOD AHMED QURESHI S/O YOUSUF QURESHI 35
HARSHIDDHI NORTH STREET NO. 02 INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN 7 RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 916 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 07 RACE COURSE ROAD,
DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
6
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
UMAKANT THOMRE S/O LATE SHRI MARTANDRAO THOMBRE
OCCUPATION: RETIRES 270 SECTOR B SANGAM NAGAR,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 917 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
DEVENDRA JAIN SINGHAL S/O LATE SHRI M.S. JAIN
OCCUPATION: RETIRED DEVGUN, 293, SUDAMA NAGAR,
ANNAPURNA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 922 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
SURESH CHANDRA VERMA S/O LATE SHRI T.C. VERMA
OCCUPATION: RETIRED 48/C, SUBHASH NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
7
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 923 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
MADAN KUMAR BADADE S/O SHRI M.V. BADADE OCCUPATION:
RETIRED 26, F/A, S-5, SCHEME NO. 78, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
REVIEW PETITION No. 1111 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF LABOUR
GOVT. OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN 7,
RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .
AND
MAHENDRA KUMAR SETHI S/O SHRI RATANLAL SETHI
OCCUPATION: RETIRED 41, MIG COLONY, CHAMUNDA
COMPLEX, CIVIL LINES, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
T h i s petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time:
12/22/2023 7:06:54 PM
This order shall also govern disposal of aforesaid review petitions No.
771/2023, 842/2023, 844/2023, 845/2023, 906/2023, 909/2023, 910/2023, 913/2023,
914/2023, 916/2023, 917/2023, 922/2023, 923/2023, 1111/2023. Regard being had to the
similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid petitions, they have been heard
analogously and disposed of by this singular order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of Review Petition No. 1110/2023 are
taken.
3. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated
04.11.2022 passed in the writ appeal No. 1443/2019 whereby the writ appeals were finally
disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2019 relying on the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in case of R.C.Gupta and Others vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Other [(2018) 14
SCC 809)] in SLP No. 33032/2015.
4. The present review petitions have been filed on the ground of subsequent
judgment of the larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue whereby the unanimous
direction for settlement of claims all the members of the Pension Fund (PAN India)
which includes the present respondent also has been passed. The petitioner organization
is supposed to review cases of employees/members as per the guidelines/directions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court as to identify the members who are entitled to get pension on
ceiling limit and on actual wages. R.C.Gupta & Ors. (supra) arises out of the the order
passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was challenged in the Apex Court.
The Apex Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 has correctly interpreted the
rules/regulations and held that the respondent is not entitled for higher pension (pension
on above ceiling limit of wages). It is held that the employees who exited from
membership of the Pension Fund without exercising of option would not be entitled to
get benefit of the higher pension. In view of the Apex Court judgment, this review
petition has been filed by the petitioners to modify the order dated 16.12.2019 passed in
writ appeal No. 1443/2019 to direct the department to take a decision on the same in
accordance with the direction of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.
8658-8659/2019.
6. The sole question which arises for consideration in the present review petition
is that whether the subsequent over-ruling of precedent relied on in a judgment would be
a ground to review it?
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the order impugned was passed on
16.12.2019. The petitioners herein have not challenged the order passed in all the writ
petitions. Admittedly, the impugned order has been challenged after a lapse of about 4
years when the Apex Court in the case of R.C.Gupta & Ors. (supra) while reviewing
its own decision has taken a different view from the previous one which certainly would
not fall under the ambit of the grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure so as to review the order passed in the year 2019.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners had placed heavy reliance on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner vs. Saurashtra Kutch
Stock Exchange in Civil Appeal No. 1171/2004 to contend that the Apex Court has
held that it is well settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. If a subsequent
decision alters the earlier one, it does not make new law. It only discovers the correct
principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where
an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite sometime, the decision rendered later
would have a retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not
correctly understood.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. On perusal of the judgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner (supra),
the facts are different in as much as one judgment in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati vs.
Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat (1999) 237 ITR 834 was decided few months
prior to this decision but the same could not be brought to the attention of the Court,
therefore, the Apex Court held that the the mistake was happened from the record and
the same was rightly rectified. In the present case, the judgment on the basis of which
retrospective applicability is sought, has been passed after a gap of four years from the
passing of the impugned order. In such a situation the aforesaid judgment is
distinguishable on facts.
11. In the case Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. &
Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 has also been adverted to wherein the Apex Court delineated
on some of the grounds as to when the review will not be maintainable as under: -
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded
adjudications,
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import,
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case,
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the
order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice,
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-
heard and corrected but lies only for patent error,
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review,
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to
be fished out and searched,
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the
appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition, and
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the
main matter had been negatived."
12. Hence, no ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is available to review the
order. This issue has recently been cropped up in Apex Court in case of Government
of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. K.L.Rathi Steels Limited and Ors. (2023) 9 SCC 757
where a difference of opinion has crept and the matter has been referred to the larger
Bench which is also pending. Therefore, looking to the fact that the order impugned was
passed four years back and the order passed in the case of R.C.Gupta & Ors (supra)
will have not applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case and even otherwise,
if the review is being held as maintainable, it would lead to the opening of the Pandora's
box.
13. Accordingly, the review petitions are hereby dismissed.
14. No order as to cost.
15. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the connected review
petitions.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
