Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranjiv Paul vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 June, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
( 2025:HHC:18863 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 9235/2024
Decided on: 18.6.2025
Ranjiv Paul .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & ors. ....Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate.
.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel,
for respondents No. 1 and 3.
Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
____________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
Clearly, this petition is misconceived. 2 The petitioner had initially filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
1. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Employees Provident Fund (officers and employees' conditions of services) regulations, 2008 and Employees Provident Fund (officers 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2025:HHC:18863 ) and employees' conditions of services) regulations, 2024 of being ultra-vires of proviso to regulation No.3 of Employees Provident Fund (officers and employees' conditions of services) regulations, 1962 and section 5, section 6A and section 6D of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and article 14 & 53 of the Constitution of India.
2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No. 1 & 2 to restore pensionary benefits under EPS, 1995 to its members as it stood prior to various amendments carried out since 2008 by quashing GSR No. 688(E) dated 26.09.2008 and 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P/24) due to faulty actuarial reports.
3. Permanently restrain the respondent No.1&2 in altering the general condition of service of regular employees as laid down in the Employees Provident Fund (officers and employees' conditions of services) regulations, 1962, w.r.t.
the applicability of Employees' Provident Fund Organization (Contributory Provident Fund) Regulations, 1960 and three Schemes framed under the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.
4. Respondent No.2 may be directed to not to enter the domain of respondent No.1 as envisaged in the PF Act in the interest of justice and fair-play.
5. Respondent No.1 &2 may be directed to restore parity amongst EPS, 1995 members and staff of EPFO with regards to payment of pension and medical allowance strictly as per Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 in the interest of justice and fair-play.
3 ( 2025:HHC:18863 )
6. Respondent No.1 may be directed to initiate action for black listing the respondent No.4, for professional misconduct in the interest of justice and fair-play.
7. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.3 to ascertain the exact amount overdrawn from the administrative fund for payment of pension to EPFO staff as per CCS (Pension) rules, 1972 and initiate steps to redeposit the amount extra drawn into the administrative fund for better administration of the EPF Schemes.
3 When the petitioner was asked to explain as to how he was entitled to file and maintain this petition, which was in the nature of public interest litigation, that too, in a service matter and confronted with the judgment rendered by this Court on an identical issue in Samriti Gupta vs. State of H.P. 2016(1) ILR 403, he thereafter filed an application (CMP No. 12176/2025) for amendment of the writ petition with following prayers:-
1) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Employees Provident Fund (officers and employees' conditions of services regulations, 2008 and Employees Provident Fund (officers and employees' conditions of services) regulations, 2024 of being ultra-vires of "first and second proviso to Regulation 1(2)(ii) as well as to regulation No.3" of Employees Provident Fund (officers and employees' conditions of services) regulations, 1962 and section 5, section 6A and
4 ( 2025:HHC:18863 ) section 6D of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and article 14 & 53 of the Constitution of India.
2. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent No.1 & 2 to revise pensionary benefits under EPS, 1995 to petitioner being one of its member from February, 2018 i.e. from date of retirement, by quashing GSR No. 688(E) dated 22.09.2008 and 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P/24) due to faulty actuarial reports.
3.Respondent No.1 &2 may be directed to restore parity between petitioner being one of EPS, 1995 member" and staff of EPFO with regards to payment of pension and medical allowance strictly as per Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Employees' Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 in the interest of justice and fair-play.
4 Admittedly, the petitioner was in service upto February 2018 and did not choose to question validity of GSR No.688 (E), dated 22.9.2008 and GSR No. 609(E), dated 22.8.2014, which forms the basis of the instant petition. 5 The only explanation offered by the petitioner for not assailing these notifications is that he was not aware of the notifications.
6 This submission on behalf of the petitioner on the face is a blatant lie given the fact that when asked to explain why he had not approached the Court earlier, the petitioner 5 ( 2025:HHC:18863 ) candidly admitted that it was because the constitutional validity of the aforesaid notification dated 22.8.2014 was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Now, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance how these notifications are otherwise duly published.
7 When further asked to explain as to how come the petitioner assail the constitutional validity of the notification dated 22.9.2008, which in turn has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the respondents have played fraud in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8 We really wonder how the instant petition would in such circumstances lie. If at all the petitioner felt that the respondents had played fraud in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner would have his remedy elsewhere. 9 Since there is no explanation whatsoever offered by the petitioner for not approaching this Court within a reasonable time and further there is no explanation why the reliefs as sought for in the application for amendment of petition could not be claimed at the time of filing of the original writ petition coupled with the fact that other prayers made in this petition do not concern the petitioner and relate 6 ( 2025:HHC:18863 ) to the employees of Employees' Provident Fund Organization, therefore, in such circumstances, this petition, more in the nature of a proxy litigation, is clearly misconceived and dismissed as such so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 18.6.2025 Judge (pankaj)