Dismissed

Yogesh Parashar v. Assistant Prov Fund and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2014CW/2954/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the delay in provident fund settlement due to a name discrepancy on the cheque. The court held the petitioner was responsible for addressing the bank closure, noting payment was released promptly post-notification.

What did the court decide?

The writ proceedings instituted against the respondent for alleged delay in payment were closed as they were found to be without any substance.

Yogesh Parashar Vs Assistant Prov Fund and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2954/2010 Yogesh Parashar

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

Date of Order

:::: 08.05.2014

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶11

Mr. Swaraj Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Goyal, for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

The short controversy involved in the matter is with reference to the claim of the petitioner for settlement of provident fund. Since there was discrepancy in the name on the cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the matter got delayed. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner himself addressed the communication dated 6^th December, 2012, addressed to the Commissioner, Provident Fund Department, Mumbai (Maharashtra), with reference to change of bank details in the records for issue of cheque since his previous bank account with HDFC bank at Jaipur was closed.

¶14

Having received the communication the respondent No.1 released due payment vide cheque dated 10^th January, 2013 for an amount of Rs.52,769/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand and seven hundred sixty nine only)

¶15

¶16

and Rs.18,383/-(Rupees Eighteen thousand three hundred eighty three only).

¶17

In the face of the fact that the petitioner himself addressed the communication dated 6^th December, 2012, requesting for issue of cheque with reference to the payment due, for the reasons detailed out in the communication explaining the closure of the previous back account with HDFC at Jaipur; no delay, in the payment, can be attributed to the respondent No.1.

¶18

Further, the respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit, to the notice of the writ application, has specifically detailed out that the communication dated 6^th December 2012, from the petitioner, duly signed by the employer of the establishment, was received on 12^th December, 2012, requesting for authorization of provident fund and pension withdrawal cheques. Accordingly, the process was initiated and consequently, the payments due were released on 10^th January, 2013.

¶19

In view of the facts and materials available on record, I do not find any delay on the part of respondent No.1, in releasing the provident fund and pension withdrawal.

¶20

¶21

Consequently, the writ proceedings instituted are without any substance and are hereby closed. No order

¶22

as to costs.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶24

Pcg

¶25

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, P.A.

Yogesh Parashar v. Assistant Prov Fund and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Parashar v. Assistant Prov Fund and Ors.

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

Sanjay Govil Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banshiwal Bairwa Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sharwan Kumar Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Prasada Vs Inspector General T S andORS

Registrar, U O R Jaipur and Ors. Vs the Authority Under Payment of

Ram Chandr Mali Vs Po,Labour Court and It