Disposed

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner v. S. Govindappa

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024RP/94/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition by EPF authorities sought deletion of a paragraph in the earlier order recording a submission said to be made on behalf of respondent No.1. On the DSGI's clarification that respondent No.1 was a pro forma party and no submission was made on its behalf, the petitioners sought disposal; the review petition and pending I.A. were disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:35472-DB RP No. 94 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

REVIEW PETITION NO. 94 OF 2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, HEAD OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NO.14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI -110 066.

¶12

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (EXAM), HEAD OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NO.14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶14

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I (HRM), HEAD OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NO.14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35472-DB RP No. 94 of 2023

¶16

THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER HQ-ZONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI ENCLAVE, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU- 560 013.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. NALINI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

S. GOVINDAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT, BOMMASANDRA, ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX, SINGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶21

KESAR SINGH B.S. S/O LATE B. SURENDRANATH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE (CENTRAL), NO.13, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶22

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, SHARAM SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011.

¶23

(NOTE: RESPONDENT NO.3 IS A

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35472-DB RP No. 94 of 2023

¶25

FORMAL PARTY WHO WAS MADE 1^ST & 2^ND RESPONDENT BY THE APPLICANT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND HAS BEEN TRANSPOSED AS 3^RD RESPONDENT AS IT IS A FORMAL PARTY AND NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT AGAINST IT)

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3)

¶28

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 IN W.P. NO. 52024/2019 C/W W.P. NO. 15770/2020 AND MODIFY THE SAME BY DELETING PARA NO. 4, AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and

¶31

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶34

This review petition has been filed by the petitioners-the

¶35

Central Provident Fund Commissioner and others seeking review of the order dated 10.02.2022 on a limited aspect wherein the Court had recorded the submission said to have been made on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35472-DB RP No. 94 of 2023

¶37

Mr. H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor

¶38

General of India appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the said submission may not be construed to have been made on behalf of respondent No.1 as respondent No.1 was only a performa party.

¶39

In view of the said submission made, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the review petition be disposed of. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

In view of disposal of the review petition, I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and

¶41

accordingly disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶44

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner v. S. Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Central Provident Fund Commissioner v. S. Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India Vs Jayashree Narain

Sri S Jagannathan Vs the Union of India

Member Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Central Silk Board Vs Sri R K Venkatesh

Sri T S Madhuranath Vs Sir M Visesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Deemanth Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

M/S. Pg Setty Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Managing Director