Disposed

M/s. Executive Engineer (Sw) Prakasam District, v. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner and Authority

Telangana HC9 Nov 2010WP/27887/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging EPFO attachment proceedings as arbitrary. The Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within four weeks, clarifying that limitation would not apply, and ordered the continuation of interim suspension during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file statutory appeal within four weeks; interim suspension to continue; no order as to costs.

M/s. Executive Engineer (Sw) Prakasam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27887 of 2007

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Executive Engineer (SW) Prakasam District Scheduled Caste Cooperative Society Ltd., Ongole, Prakasam District, Rep. by its Executive Engineer.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner & Authority Under Section 14-B of E.P.F. & M.P.Act 1952, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶9

2 The Branch Manager, M/s. Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, Mangamuru Road, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proceedings No.APRO/GNT/PDCELL/39779/2007/PRM/558 dt. 28-8-2007 of the and the Consequential proceedings vide No.AP/RO/GNT/7Q/2007/39779/PRM/07/558 dt. 28-8-2007 of the 1st respondent and also the Attachment Proceedings No. AP/GNT/39779/PD/PRM/2007 dt. 31-10-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, vioaltive of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, consequently direct the respondents to drop further action in the matter.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.GANGA RAO

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY

¶14

(SC FOR EMPLOYEES’ PF ORG.)

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27887 of 2007

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.APRO/GNT/PDCELL/39779/2007/PRM/558, dated 28.08.2007, and the consequential proceedings No.AP/RO/GNT/7Q/ 2007/39779/PRM/07/558 dated 28.08.2007 of the 1^st respondent, and also the attachment proceedings No.AP/GNT/39779/PD/PRM/2007 dated 31.10.2007, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), and consequently direct the respondents to drop further action in the matter.

¶19

It is to be noted that, as against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act.

¶20

In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a statutory appeal before the competent authority, against the impugned proceedings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and, on such appeal being filed, the competent authority shall entertain the same, without raising any objection as to the limitation. It is also directed that, during the pendency of such appeal, the interim suspension granted by this Court shall continue.

¶21

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶22

_________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶23

24^th April, 2009.

¶24

IBL

M/s. Executive Engineer (Sw) Prakasam District, v. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner and Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Executive Engineer (Sw) Prakasam District, v. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner and Authority

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

Y. Hajee Peera, Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Assessments/Apcpdcl

Raja Bahadur Vankata Rama Reddy Educational Society, Hanuman Vs The Superintending Engioneer, (Operations)

Rajupalepu Purnachandra Rao, Vs The Director of School Education

M/s. Balaji Pulvarisers, S.C.No.6687 Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Remidicherla Grama Rythu Samudayaka Ramana Sangham and Another Vs Mr Subhash Chandra and 4 Others

Ketari Chinnappa Vs The Executive Officer