Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd vs Mahendra Singh Khamesara ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2511 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2511 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd vs Mahendra Singh Khamesara ... on 16 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:8490-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1849/2025

1.       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.
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                      Versus
1.       Mahendra Singh Khamesara S/o Shri Sohan Lal Ji, R/o 42,
         Residency Road, Udaipur.
2.       The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional
         Officer, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Chitrakut
         Nagar, Bhuvana, Udaipur.
3.       The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
         Provident Fund Organizaion, Bhavishay Nidhi Bhawan, 14,
         Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajat Dave


HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
                   HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

16/02/2026

1. There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing

the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

3. Challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge

dated 03.07.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed

the petition and directed for refund of the amount withheld along

with interest.

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:28:51 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8490-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1849/2025]

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan State Mines

and Minerals Ltd. submits that they could not explain their aspect

before the learned Single Judge as no one appeared on their

behalf. However, he submits that in light of the judgment passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manipal Academy of Higher

Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner 1, the amount of

PF contribution towards earned leave could not have been

released and the same would not be treated as part of the basic

wages. He therefore submits that the amount was rightly

deducted from his PF payments by the department.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner

has invited our attention to the communication sent by the

Regional PF Commissioner to the Trustee Secretary, Rajasthan

State Mines and Minerals Ltd., which has been noticed by the

learned Single Judge. He submits that since the learned Single

Judge has taken into consideration the letter sent by the Regional

PF Commissioner and the judgment passed in the case of Manipal

Academy of Higher Education (supra), there was no occasion

for the department to take a different view.

6. We have noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (supra) has

observed as under -

"12. The term 'basic wage' which includes all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment can only mean weekly holidays, national holidays and festival holidays etc. In many cases the employees do not take leave and encash it at the time of retirement or same is encashed after his death which can be said to be uncertainties and contingencies. Though provisions have been made for the employer for such contingencies unless the contingency of encashing

1 AIR 2008 SC 1951

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:28:51 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8490-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1849/2025]

the leave is there, the question of actual payment to the workman does not take place. In view of the decision of this Court in Bridge Roof's case (supra) and TI Cycles's case (supra) the inevitable conclusion is that basic wage was never intended to include amounts received for leave encashment.

13. Though the statute in question is a beneficial one, the concept of beneficial legislation becomes relevant only when two views are possible.

14. The appeals deserve to be allowed which we direct. But if any payment has already been made it can be adjusted for future liabilities and there shall not be any refund claim since the fund is running one. There will be no order as to costs."

7. Considering the final order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court it is apparent that there was no occasion for the employer's

share contribution already remitted to the Trust to be allowed to

be refunded to the Department. The learned Single Judge has also

taken into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih2 and Jogeshwar

Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, the Cuttack & Ors.3,

which prohibits recoveries where the employee has not committed

any fault. In another case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerela

& Ors.4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that no

recovery can be made from the retiral dues.

8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere