Disposed

N.Abdul Samad v. the Regional Provident Fund

Madras HC6 Sept 2024WP/25612/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order by the Recovery Officer in EPF recovery proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner's letter was not a review petition, noting the Review Officer alone holds that power. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation with the Review Officer to request installment payments.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file representation before the first respondent (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) to request installment payments.

N.Abdul Samad Vs the Regional Provident Fund — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No. 25612 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.No.25612 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.27963 & 27967 of 2024

N.Abdul Samad

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II (C&R), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.

¶11

2.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in his impugned order dated 15.09.2023 in reference No.TB/TAM/RO/DIV.527/63939/RECOVERY/2023 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Sankar Kutralingam For Respondents : Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No. 25612 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders of the second respondent dated 15.09.2023 by stating that the second respondent has dealt the review petition filed by the petitioner even though the first respondent alone has the review power.

¶20

2. Heard Mr.Sankar Kutralingam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶21

3 . On perusal of the impugned order dated 15.09.2023, it is seen

¶22

that the order has been passed in pursuant to the letter given by the petitioner on 17.08.2023. Since the second respondent has passed the order touching upon the merits of the assessment order, the petitioner claims that the letter dated 17.08.2023 should be considered as a review petition. When the petitioner is aware of the fact that the first respondent

¶23

Page No.2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No. 25612 of 2024

¶26

is the reviewing authority, if in all seriousness the petitioner wished to file a review petition, he could have filed it before the first respondent

¶27

himself. Having made a representation by way of a letter before the second respondent on 17.08.2023, in pursuant to the recovery proceedings initiated and allowed the second respondent to pass orders on that, now the petitioner by taking advantage of his own action, expects the Court to construe his letter dated 17.08.2023 as a review filed by him.

¶28

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents stoutly

¶29

objected to construe that the letter dated 17.08.2023 is a review petition.

¶30

5. However, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was not in a position to pay the dues and if some time is given he will be able to make payment on instalments without any further objection. In such case, the petitioner is at liberty to make such a representation before the first respondent / appropriate authority himself

¶31

Page No.3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No. 25612 of 2024

¶34

and request him to pass orders allowing the petitioner to make payment

¶35

in instalments.

¶36

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed and the petitioner is

¶37

directed to make a representation to the first respondent as observed above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the first respondent shall consider and pass orders for allowing the petitioner to make payments in instalments as requested, within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

Index : Yes /No 06.09.2024 Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk

¶39

Page No.4 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No. 25612 of 2024

¶42

¶43

1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II (C&R), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.

¶44

2.The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045.

¶45

Page No.5 of 6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.No. 25612 of 2024

¶48

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶49

gsk

¶50

W.P.No.25612 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.27963 & 27967 of 2024

¶51

06.09.2024

¶52

Page No.6 of 6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Abdul Samad v. the Regional Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Abdul Samad v. the Regional Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Engineer Vs P.Durai

Dhinakuli Tholilalar Sangam Vs The Managing Director

The principal Chief Vs Kamala

Axles India Workers Union Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management, Vs K Jagan Mohan

S.Balasubramaniyan Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity Generation