Madras High Court
M/S.District Programme Co-Ordinator ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 7 March, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.No.677 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.677 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.5607 of 2025
M/s.District Programme Co-ordinator -cum-
Chief Educational Officer,
(Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Shceme now Samagra Shiksha),
100, Gengu Reddy Road,
Presidency MHSS Campus,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008,
Represented by Chief Educational Officer. … Appellant
Vs.
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Providence Fund Organization Regional Office,
No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.
2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary
Department of School Education and Literacy,
Ministry of Human and Development,
Shasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. The National Advisory Council,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource and Development,
Shasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
W.A.No.677 of 2025
4. The Executive Committee,
Project Approval Board,
Ministry of Human Resource and Development,
Shasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.3608 of 2025.
For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General
assisted by Mr.U.M.Ravichandran,
Special Government Pleader
For R1 : Mr.R.Vishnu
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated
28.06.2024 in Case Dairy No.4115 of 2021 was sought to be assailed in the
writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The order was passed
under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, by conducting an enquiry and by affording
opportunity to the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
2. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
appellant would mainly contend that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme
is implemented nationwide. The scheme is implemented through the
Government and therefore, an amount of leniency is to be shown in the
matter of initiation of action under the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. An application seeking exemption has
been submitted and it is under the consideration. Hence, the writ court ought
to have considered the relief sought for in the present writ petition.
3. The writ court considered the submissions of Mr.R.Neelakandan,
learned Additional Advocate General and the submissions made by
Mr.R.Vishnu, learned counsel for the Employees Providence Fund
Organization.
4. Admittedly, no exemption has been granted to the appellant. Any
lenient view in settling the statutory liability would undoubtedly result in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
bad precedent and many such similarly placed persons will also claim such
benefits which would create an anomalous situation.
5. Statutory liabilities are to be enforced in the manner
contemplated under the Act and Rules. Any misplaced sympathy is
impermissible and therefore in the present case, the learned Single Judge
has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
“CCT -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.,” reported in
(2020) 19 SCC 681. The period of limitation, as rightly observed by the
writ court, cannot be extended in the exercise of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nor the time limit prescribed can be
relaxed by the High Court. All such issues are to be considered by the
competent authorities in the manner known to law. However, the learned
Single Judge was considerate in allowing the appellant to settle the amount
in 15 equal monthly installments. This itself is a concession shown by the
writ court and therefore, no further concession needs to be extended in the
present writ appeal. Finally, the learned Advocate General would request
that the amount to be settled is huge and some more installments may be
granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the appellants are
directed to settle the entire amount in 30 equal monthly installments.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
07.03.2025
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Providence Fund Organization Regional Office,
No.37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014.
2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary
Department of School Education and Literacy,
Ministry of Human and Development,
Shasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. The National Advisory Council,
Represented by it Secretary,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
Ministry of Human Resource and Development,
Shasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
4. The Executive Committee,
Project Approval Board,
Ministry of Human Resource and Development,
Shasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
skr
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:06:03 pm )
