Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Union Of India on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 19.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 2861 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos. 3299, 3301 and 3303 of 2020
and
Review Application No.113/2020
(filed against the interim order dt. 17.8.2020)
W.P.No. 2861 of 2020
1.A Durairaj,
S/o. G.Ayyathurai,
7/4, V.P.Colony Extn.
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600023.
2. S.Gopalakrishnan,
S/o. Subba Rado,
50-A, Ranganathasamy IInd Street,
Lakshmipuram,
Chromepet, Chennai – 600044.
3. RM.Baskaran,
S/o. S.Ramasamy,
50/176, Palani Andavar Koil Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600023.
4. R.Balraj,
S/o. Rajamanickam,
E-49, 16th Cross Street,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600090
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
5. V.Geetha,
W/o. K.R.Prabhu,
B-45, Orchid Apartment,
2/1, Archid Street,
VGN, Blooming Garden,
Mugalivakkam, Chennai – 600125.
6. M.Rajamani,
S/o. M.Moongilan,
24, Bheemeswaran Nagar,
Main Road, Mudichur,
Chennai – 600048.
7. K.Varalakshmi Kumar,
W/o. C.S.Kumar,
No.5/3, South Mada Street,
Vijay Avenue,
Villavakkam, Chennai – 600049.
8. V.Malini,
W/o. Moorthy,
53/34, Rajuan Nagar, 1st Street,
Lakshmipuram,
Kolathur, Chennai – 600099.
9. S.Meikandan,
S/o. S.Sankara Desigar,
Mantrinavarathna Flats,
G-205, MGR Street,
Cholavaram Nagar,
Chrompet, Chennai – 600044.
10. A.Muniyandi,
S/o. M.Anbusamy,
78/48, Arignanar Anna Nagar,
Moolachatiram,
Nagathamman Koil Street,
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
Madhavaram Milk Diary,
Chennai – 600051.
11. J.Sadhu Sundar Singh,
S/o. K.John,
2/24, Janakiamman Colony,
1st Cross Street,
Arubakkam, Chennai – 600106.
12. S.Varatharajulu,
S/o. S.Senthamarai Kannan,
13, IVth Avenue,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600090
13. V.Prakasam,
S/o. V.Ramachandran,
3, Thayumanavar Street,
Lord Venkateswara Nagar,
Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600064.
14. R.Balaganapathy,
S/o. A. Ramasamy,
Plot No.4/2, Prabhu Nagar,
Pallikaranai, Chennai – 600100
15. B.Chinnadurai,
S/o. K.Balakrishnan,
Plot No. 18, Sai Flats,
29th Street, Extn.,
Thillai Ganga Nagar, Chennai – 600061.
16. R.Natanasabapathy,
S/o. T.M.Rajagopalan,
204/5, SAS Apartment, IIIrd Main Street,
Bhuvaneswari Nagar,
Velachery, Chennai – 600042.
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
17. S.Balajee,
S/o. A.Sundarraj,
No.7, B.8, Anuragh Flat,
Nanganallur, Chennai – 600061. …..Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Sakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Govt. of India, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
3. Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, HQ (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
5. Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600014.
6. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600014.
7. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
Society Ltd (TNHWCS)
350, Panthian Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 8
8. Regional Manager,
Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd
(TNHWCS)
350, Panthian Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. …Respondents
Review Application No.113/2020
1.A Durairaj,
S/o. G.Ayyathurai,
7/4, V.P.Colony Extn.
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600023.
2. S.Gopalakrishnan,
S/o. Subba Rado,
50-A, Ranganathasamy IInd Street,
Lakshmipuram, Chromepet, Chennai – 600044.
3. RM.Baskaran,
S/o. S.Ramasamy,
50/176, Palani Andavar Koil Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600023.
4. R.Balraj,
S/o. Rajamanickam,
E-49, 16th Cross Street,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600090
5. V.Geetha,
W/o. K.R.Prabhu,
B-45, Orchid Apartment,
2/1, Archid Street,
VGN, Blooming Garden,
Mugalivakkam, Chennai – 600125.
6. M.Rajamani,
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
S/o. M.Moongilan,
24, Bheemeswaran Nagar,
Main Road, Mudichur,
Chennai – 600048.
7. K.Varalakshmi Kumar,
W/o. C.S.Kumar,
No.5/3, South Mada Street,
Vijay Avenue,
Villavakkam, Chennai – 600049.
8. V.Malini,
W/o. Moorthy,
53/34, Rajuan Nagar, 1st Street,
Lakshmipuram,
Kolathur, Chennai – 600099.
9. S.Meikandan,
S/o. S.Sankara Desigar,
Mantrinavarathna Flats,
G-205, MGR Street,
Cholavaram Nagar,
Chrompet, Chennai – 600044.
10. A.Muniyandi,
S/o. M.Anbusamy,
78/48, Arignanar Anna Nagar,
Moolachatiram,
Nagathamman Koil Street,
Madhavaram Milk Diary,
Chennai – 600051.
11. J.Sadhu Sundar Singh,
S/o. K.John,
2/24, Janakiamman Colony,
1st Cross Street,
Arubakkam, Chennai – 600106.
12. S.Varatharajulu,
S/o. S.Senthamarai Kannan,
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
13, IVth Avenue,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600090
13. V.Prakasam,
S/o. V.Ramachandran,
3, Thayumanavar Street,
Lord Venkateswara Nagar,
Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600064.
14. R.Balaganapathy,
S/o. A. Ramasamy,
Plot No.4/2, Prabhu Nagar,
Pallikaranai, Chennai – 600100
15. B.Chinnadurai,
S/o. K.Balakrishnan,
Plot No. 18, Sai Flats,
29th Street, Extn.,
Thillai Ganga Nagar, Chennai – 600061.
16. R.Natanasabapathy,
S/o. T.M.Rajagopalan,
204/5, SAS Apartment, IIIrd Main Street,
Bhuvaneswari Nagar,
Velachery, Chennai – 600042.
17. S.Balajee,
S/o. A.Sundarraj,
No.7, B.8, Anuragh Flat,
Nanganallur, Chennai – 600061. …..Petitioners/Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Sakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.
7/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Govt. of India, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
3. Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, HQ (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
5. Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600014.
6. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600014.
7. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative
Society Ltd (TNHWCS)
350, Panthian Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 8
8. Regional Manager,
Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd
(TNHWCS)
350, Panthian Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. …Respondents/Respondents
8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
Prayer in W.P.No.2861 of 2020
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the
6th Respondent in No: TN/CHN/Pension/Regl.2019/restoration, dated
27.12.2019 and quash the same so for as the petitioners are concerned and
consequently, direct the Respondents to restore pension to the petitioners on the
actual salary under EPS, 1995 with effect from December 2019.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.3299/2020
To Dispense with the production of the original impugned order of the 6 th
Respondent in Letter No. TN/ CHN/ Pension/ Regl/2019/restoration, dated
27.12.2019 in so far as the petitioners 3 to 5 are concerned for the present.
Prayer in W.M.P. No. 3301/2020
To Stay of all further proceedings of the impugned letter issued by the 6 th
Respondent in No. TN/ CHN/ Pension/ Regl/ 2019/ restoration, dated
27.12.2019 pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.3303/2020
To grant order of Interim Direction, Directing the 6th Respondent to restore
pension on actual salary as was hitherto been paid to the petitioners as per order
dated October to December 2018 pending disposal of the main writ petition
Prayer in Review Application No.113/2020
Review application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w
Section 114, Order XLVII and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, and
Madras High Court Rules to (a) Review the order dated 17.08.2020 made in
W.P.No.2861/2020; (b) Clarify and order that W.P.No.2861/2020 is
independent of and not related to the W.P.No.14368/2018 and the judgment
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
W.P.No.2861 of 2020
therein dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court and other
connected writ petitions; (c ) Clarify and order that W.P.2861/2020 is
independent of and not related to the W.A.No.3501/2019 and other connected
Appeals; (d) And thereby Order correction and amendment of the order dated
17.08.2020 towards deciding W.P.No.2816 / 2020 on merits instead of waiting
for the outcome of the Writ Appeal No.3501/2019 and other connected writ
appeals. (e ) Pass such other orders as may be deemed fit.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Sundaram Iyer, Advocate
For Respondent 1 : Ms.Durga Rani, CGSC
For Respondents 2 to 6 : Mr.R.Vishnu, Advocate
For Respondent 7 : No appearance
For Respondent 8 : No appearance.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
Review Application No.113/2020
2.The present Review Petition is yet to be admitted by this Court.
However, notice has been taken by the respondents. The petitioners in the writ
petition are workers employed in the 8th respondent establishment. They filed
the main writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to pay pension
based on higher wages. When the matter was listed on 17.08.2020, the learned
Judge passed the following order: –
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
“Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the relief sought
in the Writ Petition is to quash the letter issued by the Sixth
Respondent in No. TN/CHN/Pension/ Regl/2019/restoration,
dated 27.12.2019 and for a consequential direction to the
Respondents to restore pension to the Petitioners on the actual
salary under EPS, 1995 with effect from December 2019. It is
contended that the claim is made pursuant to the relief granted to
similarly placed persons in the order dated 27.03.2019 in W.P.
No. 14368 of 2018 etc., batch passed by this Court quashing the
order No. Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96 Vol.II dated
31.05.2017 issued by the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner – I (Pension). Learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents informs that an appeal has been preferred in W.A.
No. 3501 of 2019 before the Division Bench of this Court against
the aforesaid order, which is pending.
2. In view of the aforesaid submissions made, it is necessary to
await the outcome of the appeal in W.A. No. 3501 of 2019 by the
Division Bench of this Court in order to examine the claim made
by the Petitioner in this case.
Post the matter along with W.P. Nos. 20160 and 26825 of 2019
after the disposal of the aforesaid Writ Appeal.”
3.It is rather unfortunate that the petitioners chose to file a review
application against an innocuous order passed by the learned Judge, which
merely directed that the matter be posted along with a pending writ appeal for
hearing by a Division Bench. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by
such an order. They could have, at the appropriate stage, informed the Division
Bench that their case was not connected with the writ appeal referred to in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
interim order, or alternatively, could have independently argued the matter
before the Division Bench by demonstrating the distinct nature of their case.
4.On the other hand, the review application itself came to be listed along
with the main writ petition for final disposal after a delay of five years. The
petitioners have achieved no substantive relief through this course, except to
burden the Court with voluminous typed sets and compilations of judgments
annexed to the review application. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the
face of the record warranting a review of the interim order dated 17.08.2020.
Now that the main writ petition is being heard and disposed of on merits, the
review application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
5.The standing counsel for the EPFO submitted that all writ petitions
filed by similarly placed employees of the 7th and 8th respondents have already
been disposed of by a common judgment rendered in a batch of cases beginning
with W.P. No. 7851 of 2020, in M. Krishnamurthy & Others v. Union of
India & Others, dated 10.03.2025. This submission was not disputed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
counsel for the petitioners. In the said common judgment, this Court issued the
following directions, as reflected in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the order: –
“10. When Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2021 was presented before
Justice M.Govindaraj on 03.02.2021, the following order was passed:
“2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Provident
Fund Organisation would submit that the matter is seized of by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is listed for hearing on
26.02.2021.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the Writ
Petitioners would submit that the Writ Petitions are not
connected to the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Provident Fund Organisation would affirm that all these matters
are connected to the matters pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court.
4. Therefore, recording the statement of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation that in
the event of the appeals and the petitions are allowed in favour
of the pensioners, the withhold amount will be paid along with
interest, this Court directs the Registry to tag all these matters
with W.A.No.3501 of 2019 and batch. In cases, where the
application is not processed, the respondents are directed to
process the application except for disbursing the money.”
11. When several other writ petitions raising similar grounds came
before different learned judges, and considering the pendency of the
matter before the Supreme Court, a Division Bench took cognizance
of the issue. The Division Bench, comprising the Hon’ble Chief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
Justice and Justice Subramonium Prasad, initially passed the
following order on 10.12.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 3501 of 2019 and
the batch cases:
“It has been stated at the bar that as per the directions given by
the Division Bench in the order dated 07.11.2019, as continued
in the order dated 12.11.2019, the processing of the
applications shall be undertaken and the employers would be
under an obligation to despatch such applications to the
Provident Fund Commissioner for the same being processed as
per the directions hereinabove, as expeditiously as the
applications are received.”
12. Subsequently, another Division Bench, by its order dated
25.04.2023 in W.P. No. 20160 of 2019 and related batch cases, issued
the following interim order:
“The employees concerned in these cases and similarly placed
employees whose cases are pending before this Court, are
entitled to submit their option form through online and
through physical mode, since it is represented that the
employees are unable to access the site to submit their option
form online and that the date fixed by the Supreme Court
expires on 03.05.2023. If the employees file hard copies, the
same shall be processed by the Employees Provident Fund
Organisation.”
13. Subsequently, all the writ petitions and writ appeals were heard
by a Division Bench comprising Justices S. Vaidyanathan and K.
Rajasekar in Writ Appeal No. 2621 of 2023 and the batch cases. The
matters were disposed of by an order dated 07.02.2024. In their
ruling, the Bench considered both R.C. Gupta’s case and Sunil
Kumar’s case and, in paragraphs 13 to 17, held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
“13. The Miscellaneous Applications prayed, seeking
modifications and clarifications of the paragraph 44-V as to
declare to the effect that the employees, who were retired prior
to 01.09.2014 without exercising any option but whose
provident fund contribution was on their actual salary (above
the ceiling limit under paragraph 26(6) of the EPF, 1952)
covered by the Apex Court judgment of the RC Gupta vs.
EPFO and they are entitled to jointly exercise the option with
their employees under paragraph 11(3) of the preceding
paragraph IV. Hon'ble Apex Court after considering all those
batches of Miscellaneous petitions has dismissed all in liminie.
14. Now, in this appeal, the Writ petitioners are seeking
further direction to declare that their case falls within
paragraph 44(VI). Batch of cases relating to Food Corporation
of India pensioners and Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports
Corporation (HHEC) pensioners, it is submitted by their
counsel that they have already executed joint option and it was
provisionally accepted by the EPFO for revision of pension
and the EPFO has sought for certain clarifications from the
employees and he has also circulated the above clarification
letter. The EPFO has sought for various proof and this letter/
circular shows that the EPFO is processing the application of
the certain employees, who are already claimed that they had
exercised their option for payment of pension as per actual
salary. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar case after
considering the reasons given by the EPFO for issuance of
their circular dated 31.05.2017 and after detailed discussion,
has given the steps, to be taken by the EPFO regarding the
grant of pension as per their actual salary paid by the
employees as pension. Since these petitioners claims that they
have already exercised their options, they have to satisfy the
EPFO regarding the queries raised by them. In this appeal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
they shall not seek, dispensing the answer to the queries,
raised to them by the EPFO.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically directed the
EPFO to extend the benefit to the employees of exempted
establishment and they could not seek indulgence of this Court
to exempt them from satisfying the queries of the EPFO and
we are not inclined to go into the above factual aspects, and
burden is on them to satisfy that they are eligible to get benefit
on actual salary paid by them as per the various direction
issued in the Apex Court in paragraph 44.
16. As submitted by the EPFO, since various clarifications
and modifications petitions filed seeking applicability of,
paragraph 44-VI to the persons, who are retired prior to
01.09.2014 based on the option exercised by them, under
paragraph 26(6) of Provident Fund scheme, to get pension on
the basis of actual salary paid by them has been rejected by the
Apex Court, this Court need not go into very same issue again.
Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in paragraph 44(V)
and 44(VI), that the employees who are retired prior to
01.09.2014 without exercising any option under 11(3) of the
Pre-amendment scheme, are not entitled to the benefit of this
judgment and employees who have retired before 1 st
September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3)
of 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provision of the
paragraph 11(3) of the Pension scheme as stood prior to
amendment - 2014, we are of the view that, this Court has no
authority to clarify or modify the same. Accordingly, this
Court is not inclined to pass any Orders in this regard. Though
the contention of the pensioners appears to have force, unless
the Larger bench of the Apex Court takes a different view, we
are bound by the decision of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's
case cited supra, in the light of the law of the precedent. We
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
have also expressed our view at the time of hearing that it is
for the Larger Bench of the Apex Court to take a different
view when all the pleas have been answered.
17. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Apex
Court and directions issued under paragraph 44, these batch of
Writ Appeals filed herein stands disposed of in terms of the
judgment of the Apex Court in The Employees Provident Fund
Organisation and Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Ors. [2002
SCC online] (SLP C.No.8658, 8659 of 2019).”
Notwithstanding the ruling of the Division Bench, the counsel for the
petitioners reiterated that all the petitioners fall under the category of
superannuation pension cases, having rendered the requisite eligible
service of 10 years or more upon attaining the age of 58 years. As per
the EPS 1995, superannuation is defined as reaching the age of 58
years.
14. The learned counsel submitted an additional affidavit dated
19.02.2025, wherein the petitioners presented their case in paragraphs
4 to 6 as follows:
“4. Hence in view of the said judgments dated 24.8.2021 read
in conjunction with judgement dated 4.11.2022 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and further in view of the fact that the
Petitioner herein along with the other Petitioners of my HHEC
Corporation having continued in service with HHEC beyond
1.9.2014 we are as such passing this eligibility qualification
pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by those
Judgements and as such our Writ Petitions and prayers
contained therein may graciously be granted by this Hon’ble
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
5. This Petitioner was humbly submits that I have continued in
service with the Handloom & Handicrafts Corporation Limited
(HHEC), under the control of the Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India even after 1.9.2014.
6. The said HHEC was would up by the decision taken by the
Government of India and as a result of which this Petitioner
and others who served the said HHEC were all granted
Voluntary Retirement as on 30.09.2021 only and by means of
such VRS we got superannuated from the said HHEC after
putting the Employees’ Pension Fund Qualifying Service of 10
years or more, and, thereafter after 30.09.2021 attained the age
of superannuation of 58 years for being eligible to received
Employees’ Pension.”
15. However, this Court is not inclined to examine the issues raised
by the petitioners for the first time or to determine the extent to which
they are covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar’s
case. The EPF authorities are bound to comply with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar’s case. Accordingly, in
line with the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
2621 of 2023 and batch cases dated 07.02.2024, a similar direction
will be issued in the present matter.
16. Hence, all the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction
to the authorities to implement the directives set forth in
Paragraph 44 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Employees
Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.,
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1521. However, there shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, all miscellaneous petitions
stand dismissed.”
6.In light of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of
the direction contained in paragraph 16 of the order dated 10.03.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the
authorities to implement the instructions laid down in paragraph 44 of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund
Organisation & Another v. Sunil Kumar B. & Others, reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1521. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all
connected miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.
7.Accordingly, Review Application No. 113 of 2020 stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
29.05.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
To
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Sakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Govt. of India, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
3. Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, HQ (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066.
5. Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600014.
6. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
37, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai – 600014.
7. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative
Society Ltd (TNHWCS)
350, Panthian Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 8
8. Regional Manager,
Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd
(TNHWCS)
350, Panthian Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
W.M.P.Nos. 3299, 3301 and 3303 of 2020
and
Review Application No.113/2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
29.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 02:51:42 pm )
