Satyanarayan Sharma S/O Shri Bihari Lal Sharma Vs the Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Employees Provident Fund Organization — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Satyanarayan Sharma S/O Shri Bihari Lal Sharma Vs the Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Employees Provident Fund Organization — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Miscellaneous application allowed: order dated 08.07.2024 recalled; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019 restored to its original number; Office to proceed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019 ought to be recalled. +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court stands recalled and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019 is restored to its original number.

Ratio / Principle

Since there is no dispute with regard to determination of the petitioner's retiral dues and their non-release rests only on technical counts (mismatch in the name of the father in official record and contribution for a specific period), the provisions of Section 7-A are not applicable in the present case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), order dated 07/05/2025 by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 253/2024 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019, Satyanarayan Sharma v. The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization): Allowed. The application sought recall of the order dated 08.07.2024 whereby the writ petition had been disposed of with liberty to file an appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondents opposed, asserting that proper contribution had not been made by M/s Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Ajmer, that retiral dues were undetermined, and that the petitioner's only remedy lay before the Appellate Authority under Clause 7-I. The Court held that, as there was no dispute as to determination of the retiral dues and non-release turned only on technical counts (mismatch of the father's name in official record and contribution for a specific period), the provisions of Section 7-A were not applicable; accordingly the order dated 08.07.2024 was recalled and the writ petition restored to its original number.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 253/2024

In

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019

Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Shri Bihari Lal Sharma, Resident Of Village Padanga, Post Karkeri, Tehsil Kishangarh (Roopangarh), District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

The Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office- Nidhi Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. H.R. Kumawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal
	Mr. Bhuvnesh Tiwari for
	Mr. SandeepSaxena

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

07/05/2025

The instant misc. application has been preferred for recalling the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2024 granting him liberty to file appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’). Counsel submits that the retiral dues of the petitioner have already been determined by the authority, but the same were not

[WMAP-253/2024]

(2 of 3)

released so far, hence, under these circumstances, he has approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition. Counsel submits that no further determination with regard to the calculation of the retiral dues is required to be done by any authority, hence, under these circumstances, the provisions contained under Section 7(A) are not applicable in the present matter and the matter is required to be decided by this Court, by way of passing appropriate orders to the respondents.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that a proper contribution has not been made by M/s Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Ajmer, upon which, correspondence were made and thus, the retiral dues of the petitioner have not been determined and under these circumstances, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of Clause 7-I of the Act of 1952. Counsel submits that since the petitioner has got alternative remedy, the order passed by this Court on 08.07.2024 is not required to be recalled.

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Looking to the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition that there is no dispute with regard to determination of the retiral dues of the petitioner and the retiral dues of the petitioner have not been released so far on certain technical counts i.e. a mismatch in the name of father of the petitioner in official record and contribution for specific period, hence, under these circumstances, provisions of Section 7-A are not applicable in the present case.

[WMAP-253/2024]

(3 of 3)

In view of the above, the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court stands recalled. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019 is restored to its original number.

Office to proceed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

KuD/85