[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs K.L. Garg (2026:Rj-Jd:10013) on 24 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10013]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7874/2022
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nidhi Bhawan, Jaipur
(Raj.), Through Regional Commissioner, Epfo Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. K.l. Garg S/o Harsukh Das, By Caste- Agarwal, R/o Sector
No-6, House No. 305, Hanumangarh Junction, Teh And
Dist - Hanumangarh.
2. Secretary, Provident Fund Trust, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Th. Superintending
Engineer (O And M), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Hanumangarh Junction.
4. Accounts Officer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Hanumangarh Junction.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.R. Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Aggarwal
Mr. Anupam Goyal Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
24/02/2026
1. The present civil writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner
challenging the warrant of attachment dated 11.04.2022 issued by
the learned Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, in execution of the award
dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Hanumangarh.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:04:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10013] (2 of 5) [CW-7874/2022]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.
1 was an employee of the erstwhile Rajasthan Electricity Board
and joined service on 23.01.1962. He retired on 31.05.2002
pursuant to an application for voluntary retirement. He became a
member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 governed by the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation in the year 1971 and,
thereafter, opted for the pension scheme introduced by his
department in 1988. Upon retirement, he applied for withdrawal of
his General Provident Fund, and a sum of Rs.4,17,031/- stood
accumulated in his account as on 11.12.2002. His pension was
also duly determined. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 sought
refund of the contribution made by him to the Employees'
Provident Fund Department, which came to be rejected. Aggrieved
thereby, he filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Hanumangarh seeking refund of the accumulated amount along
with interest. The Permanent Lok Adalat, vide award dated
20.07.2010, directed refund of the amount lying deposited in the
employee's EPF account with interest. The petitioner preferred a
review application, which was partly allowed vide order dated
05.02.2018, whereby the expression "EPF" was substituted with
"FPF".
3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being
aggrieved by the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, initially filed
Writ Petition No. 12747/2018, which was dismissed with liberty to
file a fresh petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 639/2020 was
instituted. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:04:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10013] (3 of 5) [CW-7874/2022]
learned Executing Court initiated execution proceedings and
issued the impugned warrant of attachment dated 11.04.2022.
4. It is further submitted that in the subsequent writ petition, a
specific ground was raised to the effect that pension matters do
not fall within the ambit of "public utility services" and, therefore,
were beyond the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the
award in question had been assailed by way of a writ petition and
the matter was pending consideration, the executing court ought
not to have proceeded with execution in the absence of final
adjudication. It is submitted that the executing court has
exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the warrant of attachment
while the challenge to the award was still subsisting.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in
(1996) 5 SCC 728, wherein the scope and limitations of the
powers of an executing court have been delineated.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that Writ
Petition No. 639/2020 came to be dismissed pursuant to a
peremptory order. Thereafter, Writ Restoration No.142/2024, filed
seeking restoration of the said writ petition, was also dismissed
vide order dated 03.12.2024 on account of non-appearance on
behalf of the petitioner and failure to cure the defects pointed out
by the Registry. The order dated 03.12.2024 reads as under:
"This petition seeking restoration of the writ petition, dismissal of which
was recorded as per peremptory order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 06.12.2023, was filed on 03.05.2024.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:04:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10013] (4 of 5) [CW-7874/2022]
When called out for hearing, neither there is any representation on
behalf of the petitioner nor the defects pointed out by the Registry have
been cured despite granting opportunities.
Restoration petition is dismissed, with liberty to revive the proceedings,
in case, any cause still survives for adjudication."
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that as
the writ petition challenging the award as well as the subsequent
restoration application, have already been dismissed, the learned
Executing Court was fully justified in proceeding with the
execution and issuing the warrant of attachment.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the material available on record.
10. A scrutiny of the record indicates that the award dated
20.07.2010 has neither been quashed nor stayed by any court of
competent jurisdiction. The writ petition assailing the said award
was dismissed in default and the application seeking its
restoration was also rejected, albeit with liberty to revive the
proceedings if any cause survives. Admittedly, the writ petition
has not been restored to date. Therefore, the award remains in
currency and executable.
11. In the absence of any interim order operating in favour of the
petitioner and in view of the dismissal of the writ proceedings, no
jurisdictional infirmity or manifest illegality can be attributed to
the learned Executing Court in issuing the warrant of attachment
dated 11.04.2022.
12. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited in scope and is to
be exercised sparingly, only where there is patent lack of
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:04:23 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10013] (5 of 5) [CW-7874/2022]
jurisdiction or gross perversity. No such circumstance is
demonstrated in the present matter.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the present civil writ petition.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate relief in
accordance with law in the event S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
639/2020 is restored.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
123-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:04:23 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
