Dismissed

Mr Aboni Deb v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Region I

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2019WPC/5094/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition seeking penal interest on delayed provident fund dues. Since the respondent counsel submitted that interest had already been paid, no adjudication occurred. The petitioner was directed to approach authorities if grievances regarding interest remain.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no specific relief was granted as the matter was deemed moot based on respondent's submission.

Mr Aboni Deb Vs Regional Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 5094 of 2012

¶3

-----

¶4

Mr. Aboni Deb ... Petitioner Vs.

¶5

1.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi 2.Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad .… … ... Respondents

¶6

-----

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

-----

¶9

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Adv ----- Order No. 03 : Dated 16th July, 2019

¶10

No body appears on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondents.

¶11

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the penal interest on provident fund dues, due to the inordinate delay of release of the same i.e. between the date of retirement and last payment of provident fund dues by the Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-I, Ranchi.

¶12

3. So far payment of provident fund is concerned, as per the pleadings available on record, it appears that amount against provident fund has already been paid to the petitioner. 4. In the rejoinder to counter affidavit, filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that provident fund dues of the petitioner was partly paid on 16.03.2011 and rest part was paid on 16.12.2011 but, the payment of second part has been made after long delay of more than 29 months, after much persuasion. Hence, penal interest on account of delay in making payment of provident fund is required to be paid.

¶13

5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the Act, the interest has already been paid.

¶14

6. In view of the specific submission made by counsel for the respondents, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶15

7. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶16

8. It goes without saying that still if the petitioner has any grievance with respect to interest, he is at liberty to approach the respondents-authorities, who shall pass speaking order.

¶17

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶18

Alankar/-

Mr Aboni Deb v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Region I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Aboni Deb v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Region I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaibat Prasad And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dr Ram Prakash Verma and Ors. Vs Health

Ranu Kumari Sharma Vs Agriculture Department

Ashish Kumar and Ors. Vs Human Resources Department

Irfan Ozair Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Krishna Bihari Lal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.