Dismissed¶20

Ram Kanwar Dangi v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2025CWP/1384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Kanwar Dangi v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, CWP-1384-2024, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 18.11.2025 by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar (oral judgment). EPF/provident fund pension of Rs.5029/- per month discontinued by order dated 16.06.2008; writ petition under Article 226/227 sought certiorari and mandamus with 18% interest; dismissed for want of prosecution owing to petitioner's repeated non-appearance; no ruling on pension entitlement; citable only, if at all, for the procedural point that a writ petition in which the petitioner fails to appear may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

As the case was called twice and none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, it appears the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the case. ¶15

Ram Kanwar Dangi Vs Regional Provident… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

CWP-1384 - 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

275 CWP-1384-2024 Date of decision:18.11.20 2 5

Ram Kanw a r Dangi

.....Petition e r

VERSUS

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another

¶9

.....Respond e nts

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶11

Present : None for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate fo r respondent No.1.

¶13

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been f iled under Article 226/227 of t h e Constitutio n of India for issuance of a w r it in the nature of certiorari f o r quashing t h e order dated 16.06.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by responde n t No.1 where b y the claim of the petitioner to t h e settled pension @ Rs.5029/- p e r month has b een discontinued. Further for i s suance of a writ in the nature o f mandamus d irecting the respondent No.1 to d isburse the pension as admissib l e from the da t e of retirement to the actual rea l ization of the entire amount alo n g with interes t @ 18%per annum.

¶15

Reply on behalf of responde n t No.1 filed in the Court toda y , which is or d ered to be taken on record. Regi s try is directed to place the same a t appropriate place. 3. The case was called twice bu t none has put in appearance o n behalf of th e petitioner. It seems that petitio n er is not interested in pursuing t h e