Madras High Court
P.Murugesan vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 2 August, 2024
W.P(MD).No.6920 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 07.06.2024
Pronounced on : 02.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P(MD)No.6920 of 2024
P.Murugesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
(Delhi West),
EPFO Complex, Sector - 23,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 077.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Narimedu, Madurai - 625 002.
3. Board of Trustee,
Represented by its Chairman,
AADF Provident Fund Trust,
C/o. National Horticultural Research
and Development Foundation,
47, Institutional Area, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110048 .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the 3rd respondent letter No.NHRDF/AADFPF-
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.6920 of 2024
TRUST/PM/2023-24/3656, dated 14.11.2023 and quash it as illegal and
consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pay the accrued interest to the
Provident Fund bearing Account No.DL/CPM/6491/98 from 31.03.2014
to till date of payment.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Murugesan (Party in person)
For Respondents : Mr.G.Karthick
Standing Counsel for R1 & R2
: Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam
for R3
ORDER
Heard Mr.P.Murugesan (Party in person), Mr.G.Karthick, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents 1&2 and Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam,
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the letter
dated 14.11.2023 in Letter No.NHRDF/AADFPF-
TRUST/PM/2023-24/3656 and to direct the 3rd respondent to pay the
accrued interest to his Provident Fund Account No.DL/CPM/6491/98
from 31.03.2014 to 12.01.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The petitioner who appeared as party in person was an ex-
employee of the National Horticultural Research and Development
Foundation and he was terminated from service on 21.07.2010. The
termination order has been issued by the subordinate authority to
Appointing authority in violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 when the Industrial Dispute petition is pending. Even
though the said litigation was pending, there is no bar to pay the EPF
amount to the members and close their accounts.
4. The petitioner sent an application under the RTI Act to the first
respondent for claiming interest for the year 2018 and as per the
information, the third respondent has credited the interest on his GPF
account for the annual year 2014-2015 and 2017-2018. In the impugned
order dated 14.11.2023, it is stated that three years interest have been
worked out on the Provident Fund account of the petitioner and
subsequent to his termination the balance amount of Rs.2,61,030/- as full
and final settlement along with the interest upto 2013-2014 has been paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to him on 11.01.2023 through HDFC Bank, New Delhi Cheque No.
000424 dated 11.10.2023.
5. In fact the above payment has been made pursuant to the order
of the High Court dated 29.09.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.8627 of 2014.
The order further stated that as per Section 72(6) of the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, if the PF amount is not claimed or no
application for withdrawal under paragraph 69 or 70 or transfer, as the
case may be has been preferred within a period of 36 months from the
date it becomes payable, the said PF amount shall be transferred to the
account to be called inoperative account. In the case of a claim for the
payment of the said balance, the amount shall be paid by debiting into the
inoperative account. So, it is stated that once the account has become
inoperative, no interest can be accrued. However, the petitioner bases his
claim in pursuant to the reply given to him on 07.12.2018 for an
information sought by him under the RTI Act. In the said information
dated 07.12.2018, the petitioner wanted the copy of the annual statement
of accounts from the year 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. The respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
office has given a reply stating that those statements are enclosed. So, the
petitioner claims that he is entitled to the interest for the period between
2013-2014 to 2017-2018 as shown in the statement and also the interest
for the consequential period till 12.01.2023.
6. It is to be noted that the petitioner had already filed
W.P(MD)No.8627 of 2014 for seeking annual statement of accounts
pertaining to his PF account for the years 2008-2009 to 2013-2014. The
Court has also dealt about the petitioner's claim for payment of interest
beyond the financial year 2013-2014. The learned Single Judge had made
an observation stating that the petitioner's claim cannot be allowed and
he has not been entitled to get interest for the year 2013-2014. It is
further observed that the entitlement itself is questionable because
litigation in respect of the petitioner's dismissal from service is also
pending. So, it is observed that the petitioner's claim for interest beyond
2014 is left open and he is at liberty to challenge it after the disposal of
the petition pending before the Labour Court. In fact, the Court has
directed the third respondent to pay the amount which is payable for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period 2013-2014 at the earliest to the petitioner and the petitioner fails
to accept the same. Hence, he is not entitled to get any interest for the
period 2010 to 2014. The essential part of the above judgment is
extracted as under:
"15. Now, the claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to
payment beyond 2013-2014. However, the issue of his dismissal
from service is pending before the Labour Court. At this juncture,
the petitioner's claim cannot be allowed and he is not entitled to
interest beyond 2013-2014. Since the entitlement itself is
questionable, when the issue of dismissal from service is pending
before the Labour Court, the petitioner cannot demand to pay the
interest beyond 2013-2014. If the petitioner's plea in the case
challenging the dismissal of service is allowed by the Labour Court
then, the petitioner would be entitled to the amount, until then, the
petitioner is not entitled to the said amount. Therefore, the claim of
the petitioner is left open for the period beyond 2014 and the
petitioner is at liberty to challenge it after the disposal of the
petition before the Labour Court.
16. For the reasons stated above this Court is directing the
third respondent to pay the amount which is payable for the period
until 2013-2014 at the earliest. The petitioner shall accept the said
amount without fail. If the petitioner declines to accept, the
petitioner is not be entitled to any interest for the period from 2010
to 2014."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. However the petitioner's stand on the statement furnished to him
beyond the period of 2013-2014 in the information furnished to him
through RTI even though it is clarified by the learned counsel for the
respondents that it is computerised statement and no much relevance can
be given to the same. So far as the respondents are concerned, the
petitioner is not entitled to any interest of Provident Fund after three
years of his dismissal from service. According to the respondents, the PF
account of the petitioner has been transferred to inoperative account after
his settlement has been done. In such case, the petitioner cannot have any
legal entitlement and even if he has got any such entitlement that should
be depending upon the outcome of the Industrial Dispute raised by him
challenging his dismissal. Since the very same issue has already been
dealt and the findings have been rendered in W.P(MD)No.8627 of 2014,
the petitioner has raised the very same issue once again by filing this writ
petition. The computer generated statement given to the petitioner under
the RTI Act cannot change the rules of Provident Fund.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. As on today, the petitioner is a dismissed employee and he is
not on the roster of the respondents. The petitioner has already been
disbursed with the PF amount along with interest added to the same as
per the statutory provisions in this regard. Since the petitioner has
challenged the same issue already settled before the Court in the earlier
writ petition in W.P(MD)No.8627 of 2014 and the impugned
clarificatory note given only in pursuant to the orders of the Court, I do
not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner. As on today, the
petitioner's PF account is a settled/inoperative account. Hence, it is unfair
on his part to claim interest for the later period even though there is no
change in the status of employment of the respondents. As the petitioner
has based his claim on his own imagination, he is not entitled with the
relief as prayed.
9. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
02.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
PJL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA ,J.
PJL
Pre-delivery Order in
02.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
