Partly allowed

Employees Provident Fund Organization through Shri Prashant Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026WPC/3213/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with two connected writ petitions. In WP(C) No. 3213 of 2022, the Court held that an interlocutory order merged with the final order already challenged in WP(C) No. 789 of 2024, leading to the disposal of the earlier petition. In WP(C) No. 789 of 2024, the matter was adjourned.

What did the court decide?

WP(C) No. 3213 of 2022 stood disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of. WP(C) No. 789 of 2024 adjourned.

Employees Provident Fund Organization… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27880

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 3213 of 2022

¶4

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional office, Ranchi having its office at Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, P.O and P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi through its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) Shri Prashant Kumar, son of Bhagwan Prasad, presently posted as APFC (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional office, Ranchi having its office at Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, P.O and P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi.

¶5

.... Petitioner(s)

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ranchi having its office at GMTD Ranchi, Telephone Exchange, Main Road, Ranchi.

¶8

Sri Subash Chandra Bose, Pandra Middle School, Near Devi Mandir, Pandra, P.O Hehal, P.S. Pandra, Ranchi. … Respondent(s)

¶9

With

¶10

W.P.(C) No. 789 of 2024

¶11

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶13

-----For the Petitioner(s): M/s Rupesh Singh and Jagdeesh, Advocates. For the BSNL: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate.

¶14

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 3213 of 2022

¶16

10/15.09.2026 This writ petition is against the interlocutory order passed in appeal being I.T. No. 2/33/2022, whereby, the Appellate Tribunal directed the EPFO to refund 75% of the amount recovered in compliance of order passed under Section 7A of the EPF and M.P. Act, 1952 and also condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The said appeal thereafter was heard and was finally decided which gave rise for filing WP(C) No. 789 of 2024.

¶17

In the aforesaid writ being WP(C) No. 789 of 2024, the action of the Appellate Authority in condoning the delay is also questioned.

¶18

Once the final order has been passed in a proceeding, the interlocutory order is merged in it. Since the interim order has been merged with the final order and the final order in all respect has already been challenged in WPC No. 789 of 2024, nothing remains in WPC No. 3213 of 2022 to be decided. The issue raised in WPC No. 3213 of 2022 will also be considered in WPC No. 789 of 2024.

¶19

In that view, WP(C) No. 3213 of 2022 stands disposed of . Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 789 of 2024

¶21

As prayed for, this case is adjourned, to be listed after two weeks.

¶22

In the meantime, counter affidavit, if any, must be filed.

¶23

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶24

15^th September, 2026 Anu/- Cp2.

Employees Provident Fund Organization through Shri Prashant Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees Provident Fund Organization through Shri Prashant Kumar v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

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