Disposed¶43

Vikash Kumar Jain v. The Regional P.F. Commissioner

Telangana HC8 Dec 2025WP/20855/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPFO Form-13 PF transfer claim rejected; writ of mandamus under Article 226 against Regional P.F. Commissioner, Hyderabad; Karvy Stock Broking Limited as previous employer; employer default in depositing PF contributions; transfer of Rs.5,14,277 to BG/BNG/1645396/11301 completed 28.11.2025; grievance held redressed; petition disposed with liberty and no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; Telangana HC, 08.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of, recording that the PF transfer stands completed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law if any further grievance persists; no order as to costs. ¶43

Vikash Kumar Jain Vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner's claim for transfer of his provident fund dues to his new employer (Form-13 transfer claim) was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the EPF Act, 1952, the EPF Scheme, 1952 and the Constitution, warranting a writ of mandamus directing transfer of the PF account.

¶14

Court's answer

The petitioner's grievance stands redressed because, per instructions of the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Legal) placed on record by EPFO's Standing Counsel, the petitioner's Form-13 has been processed and the Provident Fund amount of Rs.5,14,277/- has been transferred to BG/BNG/1645396/11301 on 28.11.2025 and duly communicated to the petitioner on 03.12.2025.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of recording the fact that the Provident Fund transfer has been completed; it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law if any further grievance persists; no order as to costs.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 by a former employee of Karvy Stock Broking Limited challenging the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Hyderabad's order dated 05.12.2024 (Grievance ID APHYD/E/2024/38819) rejecting his Form-13 online claim for transfer of PF accumulations to his new employer, alleging the previous employer deducted but failed to deposit contributions. At hearing, EPFO's Standing Counsel placed on record instructions dated 05.12.2025 of the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Legal) that Form-13 had been processed/transferred to account BG/BNG/1645396/11301 for Rs.5,14,277/- on 28.11.2025 and communicated to the petitioner on 03.12.2025. Finding the grievance redressed, the Court disposed of the petition recording completion of the PF transfer, reserved liberty to pursue legal remedies for any residual grievance, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions. The contention that a PF transfer cannot be denied for the previous employer's default (order dated 22.08.2024 in W.P. No. 32058 of 2023) was urged but not adjudicated.

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20855 OF 2o25

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vikas! Kumar Jain, S/o. Bachhraj Jain, aged about 47 years, Occ.pvt Employee, R/o. Flat No.1 203, Emami City, Block 43, 2, Jessore R6ad Dum Oum, Kdtak'ata_ 700028

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETIT|ONER

¶11

The_Regional P.F. Commissioner, Hyderabad, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No. 3-4-763. Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad - S0OO27.

¶12

5?*y Stock Broking Limited, Karvy [/illennium, plot No.3.l /p, Nanakramguda Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rangareddi, TG-500032.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction, or more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.'1 in issuing the lmpugned Order in Grievance lD APHYDlEl2024l38819 dt.25l11t2O2S passed on o511212025 rejecting the Petitioner's claim for transfer of his provident Fund dues to his new employer as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme,^.1952 and Article 14 and Article 3004 of the Constitution of lndia, 1950 and consequentially direct the transfer of his PF Account, in the interest of justice.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL 1 may be pleased to suspend the impugned Order with a Grievance lD I PHYD/E/2024138819 d1.2511112025 passed on 0511212025 which was issued by i :spondent No. 1.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. MANINI BHARATI, REPRETS :NTING SRI BOKARAO LOKESHIAI, tR REDDY

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI S. SURENDER REt) )Y, S.C. FOR EPFO Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: -

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶22

lIIRIT PETITION No.2O855 of 2o25

o4.12.2025

Between:

Vikash Kumar Jain

..,Petitioner

AND

The Regional P.F.Commissioner, Hyderabad, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad and another

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The petitioner challenges the order dated O5.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.l rejecting his PF transfer claims under Form13. He seeks a direction to transfer his PF accumulations from his previous employer, Karv5r Stock Broking Limited, to his present employer.

¶32

Heard Ms.Manini Bharati, learned counsel representing Mr.Bokarao Lokeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO. perllsggl the record.

\ -^v

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner ,vas appointed as Assistalt General Manager of respondent No.2_(), mpany, which is registered under the Employees, provident Fund I rd Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1 952 (for short^.,the Act"). It is furrl er stated that he worked there from O2.O7.2olg to 03.0g.2O2 1 and relieved on O9.IL.2O2I. It is further stated that his pF c: rtributions were deducted every month but were not deposited I 1.^{the employer.} Although PF amounts were deducted from his sa: ry,^{the employer} allegedly failed to deposit both its own anc the errrployee's contributions. After resigning and moving for neu rmployment, the petitioner sought to transfer his pF account an( filed an online Transfer Claim For;r (Form i3) on 24tt Novemb: ', 2024 and the same was rejected on 05.12.2024. Aggrieved by tt e same, he filed the present writ petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further s rbmits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely cov,r'ed by the order dated 22.08.2024 pessed by rhis Court in W.p.No 32058 of 2O23, wherein it was held that an employee cannot be ct nied transfer of PF accumulation merely because the previous enr rloyer defaulted in remitting contributions. It is submitted that a sL oilar order mav be passed even in this case.

¶38

¶39

¶40

5 When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, for respondent No.1 placed on record instructions dated 05.12.2025 issued by the Assistant P.F"Commissioner(Legal), Employees^provident Fund Organization, wherein it is stated that Form 13 was transferred to BG/BNG/1645396/11301 for an amount of Rs.5, 14,27Tl- on 28.11.2025 and informed to the petitioner through Mail on 03.t2.2025.

¶41

I I

¶42

Considering the submissions made and in view of the instructions placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel for EPFO stating that the petitioner's Form-l3 has a-lready been processed and the Provident Fund amount of Rs.5, 14,2TZ l- has been transferred to BG/BNG/1645396/ll3}l -n 2B.ll.2O2S, and, the same has been duly communicated. to the petitioner on 03.12.2025, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, recording the fact that the Provident Fund transfer has been comp,eted. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law if any further grievance persists. No order as to costs.

¶44

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

,^/

¶48

s D/'A r{ is f^"^YYt 33,tY[t[

¶49

¶50

//TRUE COPY//