Karnataka High Court
Sri.Chandrakant vs The Regional Provident Fund And Ors on 16 September, 2020
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
Bench: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.202447/2018 (L-PF)
Between:
Sri Chandrakant S/o Kashiray Tuppad
Aged about 65 Years
Retired Vehicle Maintenance
Supervisor/Mechanic
R/o H.No.2-910/65/310
Jay Nagar
Kalaburagi - 585 105
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mahesh Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, EPFO
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan
Opp: Vijaynagar Colony
Aland Road, Kalaburagi - 585 101
2. The President
Hyderabad - Karnataka Education Society
Behind PDA College of Engineering
SAC Building, Kalaburagi - 585 102
3. The Medical Superintendent
Basaveshawar Teaching and General Hospital
2
Sedam Road, Kalaburagi - 585 105
... Respondents
(Sri R.S. Patil, Advocate for R1;
Sri Amresh S. Roja, Advocate for R2 & R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to, issue a writ of mandamus
or order or direction to the 3rd respondent to consider his
representation dated 31.03.2018 (Vide annexure - D )
directing to forward the duly filled Performa of Form 3A
(revised) along with all required particulars along with the
application to the 1st respondent as envisaged under the
employees Provident Fund's Scheme 1995 and on receipt
of such particulars the 1st respondent be directed to
consider the revision of the pension of petitioner in
accordance with law.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a driver on 01.06.1981 in the respondent No.2 and was promoted as vehicle maintenance supervisor/mechanic on 03.11.1993 and was posted at the respondent No.3. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 3 30.06.2015 and was drawing pension ever since then. The petitioner claimed that the Apex Court in an appeal filed in SLP Nos.33032-33033/2015, had allowed the benefit of the actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding the wage limit of Rs.6,500/- per month from the effective date to the members of the Employees Provident Fund's Scheme, 1995. The petitioner therefore, made an application to the respondent No.1 to revise his pension accordingly, since his wage exceeded a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month. The respondent No.1 in terms of its communication dated 20.02.2018, directed the petitioner to forward the application and the certified copy of Form No.3A duly filled up with effect from 16.11.1995 through respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner therefore submitted a detailed representation dated 31.03.2018 to the respondent No.3 and requested the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to furnish the prescribed proforma in Form No.3A under Employees Provident Fund's Scheme, 1995 and requested the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to send the wage details in the aforesaid proforma. The petitioner forwarded similar 4 copies to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 31.03.2018. Since the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have failed to comply with the request of the petitioner, he has filed the present petition seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 31.03.2018 and direct the respondent No.3 to forward the duly filled proforma in Form No.3A along with the required particulars to the respondent No1. 2. The counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that they have addressed a letter dated 16.02.2019 to the respondent No.1 indicating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Employees Provident Fund's Scheme, 1995, since his statutory wage does not exceed a sum of Rs.6,500/-.
3. The question is who amongst respondent Nos.1 to 3 were duty bound to determine the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of the scheme?
5
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have a duty to forward the necessary particulars of the petitioner in Form No.3A to the respondent No.1. It is for the respondent No.1 to determine whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Employees Provident Fund's Scheme, 1995. In that view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to forward the duly filled Form No.3A concerning the petitioner and as prescribed under Employees Provident Fund's Scheme, 1995 to the respondent No.1.
In order to facilitate the respondent No.3, the petitioner shall place before the respondent No.3 all material documents available with him so as to ensure that the Form No.3A is properly and duly filled. This exercise shall be completed by the respondent No.3 within a period of two months from the date of petitioner furnishing all material particulars to the respondent No.3.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP