Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Divakar Morey vs D/O Atomic Energy on 8 February, 2023
1 OA.No.170/00486/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00486/2020
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Divakar K Morey,
S/o Late Shri R. Krishnaji Rao,
Aged 62 years,
647, 11th Main, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 560038 ...Applicant
(By applicant in person)
Vs.
1. UOI, Represented by the Secretary,
Dept. of Atomic Energy,
CSM Marg, Mumbai 400020
2. The Chairman,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd,
Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400094. ...Respondents
(None for Respondent No.1, Shri Padmanabha Holla,
Advocate for Respondent No.2)
2 OA.No.170/00486/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
The applicant has sought for the following reliefs:-
" a) Direct the Respondents to furnish a true & fair account along with Annual/Monthly statements up to date.
b) Hold & declare that the deductions/recoveries made under various heads in the order No. NPCIL/RR site/DGM (F&A)/S dtd: 16/10/2008 (Annexure-A-5) from the P.F amount payable to the Applicant as Irregular, Illegal & Null &Void strictly as per provisions of Provident Fund Act 1925, Rule 60 k(1) of CPC 1908 & Section 10 of EPF Act 1952.
c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to settle the Provident fund claims of the applicant immediately with 18% cumulative interest per annum right from date of termination 31st May 2001 until date of actual payment. As per applicant the total amount works out to Rs. 39.03 Lakh as on 10th May 2017 (Annexure A-3).
d) Pass such order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case."3 OA.No.170/00486/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
2. The respondents have filed a memo of calculation as under:-
P.F. CALCULATION TABLE OF DIVAKAR MOREY, NPCIL Date of Termination 31-05-2001 Sl. Particulars PF RR IPCL Total Rs.
No site share
1 Employee share as on 27174 15688 42862
31-03-2001
2 Employer Share as on 148026 19354 167380
31-03-2001
3 Total 175200 35042 210242
4 Holy Bonus for 2001 --- 16426
5 Employee share as on 49200 --- 49566
31-03-2002 April +May
6 Employer Share as on 31-03-2002 179226 ---- 158972
April +May
7 Update allowance 500
8 With interest up to Total 228426 225464
30-11-2001
9 Car loan with interest as on -201626
31-12-2001 & other dues
10 Balance after settlement as on 23838
03-05-2005 (225464 - 201626)
11 Rs.23838/- was paid through Cheque No. 022815 dated 25-07-2008 13 Difference (Employer 20254 Contribution) as on 31-12-2001 (179226-158972) 14 Difference (Employee -366 Contribution) as on 31-12-2001 (Excess Payment) (49566 - 49200) 15 Balance due to Employee 19888 (20254-366) 16 Interest from 01-04-2002 1790 @ 9% (2002-03) 17 Interest @ 8% for the year 1734 2003-04 18 Interest @ 8% for the year 1873 2004-05 19 Interest @ 8% for the year 2023 2005-06 20 Interest (@ 8% for the year 2185 2006-07 21 Interest @ 8% for the year 2359 2007-08 22 Interest @ 8.5% for the year 2707 2008-09 23 Interest @ 8% 2009-10 up to 2074 17-12-09 24 Paid through DD 876681 dt 36633 17-1209 4 OA.No.170/00486/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The applicant Shri. Divakar Morey, party in person would submit that the said memo of calculation is not in conformity with the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act' for short). According to the applicant, he is entitled to cumulative rate of interest on the amount of Rs. 2,43,203 from 31.05.2001 in terms of Section 7Q and 14B of the Act.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Shri. Padmanabha Holla representing the Respondent No. 2 submits that the calculation sheet is self explanatory and the same has been paid and no balance amount is due to the applicant. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the application.
5. It is pertinent to note that this is the third round of litigation before the Tribunal. The stance of both the parties has remained the same. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal cannot sit in adjudication of the matter as an assessing authority with respect to the amount payable and paid by the employer to the employee as regards the PF amount. The rate of interest claimed by the applicant also requires to be examined by the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
5 OA.No.170/00486/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
6. As such, we are of the considered view that the controversy requires to be addressed having regard to the factual aspects which requires detailed enquiry/examination by the concerned authority.
7. Hence, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this matter with liberty to the applicant to approach the concerned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, for redressal of his grievances.
8. If such an application/representation is submitted by the applicant before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned, shall consider the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
9. OA stands disposed of accordingly.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/rj/