Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh Khamesara vs The Raj.State Mines And Minerals ... on 3 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28655]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6844/2017
Mahendra Singh Khamesara S/o Shri Sohan Lal Ji, aged about 62
years, R/o 42, Residency Road, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd. Through Its
The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mines And
Minerals Ltd., 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur.
2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State
Mines And Minerals Ltd., 4 Meera Marg, Udaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd.
Provident Fund Trust, 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional
Office, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Chitrakut
Nagar, Bhuvana, Udaipur.
5. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishay Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Dave
For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.S. Gehlot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
03/07/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the deduction
of Rs.87,899/- made by the respondent-Rajasthan State Mines
and Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'RSMM') from the
Provident Fund dues of the petitioner.
3. Briefly noted, the facts involved in the present writ petition
are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent-RSMM
[2025:RJ-JD:28655] (2 of 5) [CW-6844/2017]
on the post of of General Manager and retired from the services
upon superannuation on 31.08.2015. While the petitioner was
working in the respondent No.1-Department, contributions were
made by the employer towards the Provident Fund account of the
petitioner. The petitioner has never misrepresented or filed any
application for payment of contribution by the employer towards
his Provident Fund account and the employer-RSMM, on their own,
has continued to make such contributions towards the Provident
Fund account of the petitioner. After the retirement of the
petitioner, an amount of Rs.87,899/- was found to be short in the
payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. When the petitioner
inquired about the said short payment, it was informed to the
petitioner that such deduction was made in light of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manipal
Academy of Higher Education vs. Provident Fund
Commissioner (Civil Appeal No.1832/2004) and the order of
the FA/RSMM dated 14.10.2015. Hence being aggrieved by such
deduction, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deduction
of the amount of Rs.87,899/- from the retiral benefits of the
petitioner is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge,
Cuttak & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCR 13. He submits that the
petitioner has never misrepresented or furnished any incorrect
information to the employer RSMM for deposition of contribution
[2025:RJ-JD:28655] (3 of 5) [CW-6844/2017]
towards his Provident Fund and, therefore, he cannot be made
liable for any such contribution and he cannot be penalized by way
of recovery effected from his retiral dues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the
Employees Provident Fund Organsation has also written to the
respondent-RSMM stating therein that the recovery effected by
the respondents is not in consonance with the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to
pay the withheld amount of Rs.87,899/- along with interest.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the respondents have withheld the amount in the light of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Manipal Academy of Higher Education (supra). However, he very
fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to
the petitioner before deducting the amount from his retiral
benefits.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the relevant records of the case.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner superannuated
from the services of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Department from
the post of General Manager. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioner has not misrepresented or furnished any wrong
information for deposition of the contribution by the employer
towards his Provident Fund. It appears that the employer-
respondents, on their own accord, continued to make such
contributions. Moreover, the respondent Nos.3 & 4, vide their
communication dated 05.06.2017 have also written to the
[2025:RJ-JD:28655] (4 of 5) [CW-6844/2017]
respondent Nos.1 & 2 that the deductions made by the respondent
Nos.1 & 2 are not in confirmity with the legal position settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The exact communication made to
the respondent Nos.1 & 2 reads as under :
"It is explained by you that amount of Rs.87899/-
was recovered from PF settlement amount of Sh.
Khamesara as excess PF contribution was deposited on
leave encashment amount paid to him during 2008 to
2014. This recovery seems to have been made in
pursuance to Hon'ble Suprme Court's judgment dated
12.3.2008 in Civil appeal no.1832/2004 and FA/RSMM
order dated 14.10.2015.
In this context, it is brought to your notice that
Hon'ble Supreme Court's order allows adjustment in
future liabilities in case any payment has already been
made. But refund claim of contribution is not allowed in
apex court order. By recovering the employer share of
contribution already remitted in Trust, you have in a
way taken refund claim which is not in conformity with
Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement
You are accordingly directed to rectify this
aberration and make good the recovered amount to the
member."
8. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that if the
petitioner has not misrepresented or furnished any false
information for the contribution to be made by the respondent-
employer towards his Provident Fund, then no deductions can be
made from his retiral benefits. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and the case of
Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra) prohibits such recoveries where the
employee has not committed any fault.
[2025:RJ-JD:28655] (5 of 5) [CW-6844/2017]
9. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ
petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The
respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.87,899/-,
deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period
of four weeks from the date of this order. The said amount of
Rs.87,899/- shall also bear an interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of deduction of such amount till the date of actual payment.
10. Stay petition and other pending application (s), if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
45-/Arun Pandey/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
