G. C. Giddaiah alias Gideon Gadi Vs The Chief Commissioner and another

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23590 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. C. Giddaiah alias Gideon Gadi, s/o Giddaiah, Age 70 years, Occ. Retd. Manager, APCOB, Rl/o H.No. G4 SLV Paradise, Krishna Reddy Nagar, SAP Camp, Kurnool - 518003.

¶9

....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Chief Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad^-500027.

¶12

2 Manager, Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad -500001 .

¶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 Cou( may be^pleased to lssue order or orders, writ or writs, more particularly ln the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to submit the detailed audited accounts from 1976 to till date of his retirement on 30/06/2009 and to^pay the undisbursed amount of Rs. 3,64,586 along with admissible interest from 0110111976 to till the date of payment.

¶15

I.ANO:I OF 2020

¶16

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or orders directing the respondents to pay the interest on delayed payment of Rs. 22,937 -72 ps which is due in the year 1993 but paid on 3011O12018 to the petitioner in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY

¶18

Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI D.RAGHAVENDAR^{r AO}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI ROHIT POGULA

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

7

¶22

i

¶23

IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶24

AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.23590 OF 2O2O

¶27

DATE:. 22.L2.2O25

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

G. C. Giddaiah alias Gideon Gadi

¶30

. . Petitioner

¶31

And

¶32

The Chief Commissioner,

¶33

Regional Provident Fund Office, Barkatpura,

¶34

Hyderabad - 500027 and another.

¶35

.. Respondents

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri D Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel appearing on

¶38

2

¶39

sN.l W.P No.23S9O of 2oio

¶40

behalf of respondent No.1, and Sri llohat pogula, learned counser appearing on beharf : F respondent No.2.

¶41

2,7 n ra ro e( :! 'urt seekino

¶42

DTaver as unde r:

¶43

"... to issue order or orders, writ 3r writs, more pa rticula rly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents .r su bm it the detailed audited accounts From 19r 6 to till date of his retirement on 30_06_2009 arr I to pay the undisbursed amount of Rs.3,64,586 al rng with admissible interest from 01_01_1976 t<t till the date of payment and be pleased to pass,.. ,

¶44

3 f h ti on r rl t rs oert

¶45

a t a fir '.t I bv the o r ln su f e r t rt _^Petition is as under:

¶46

(i) The petitioner, after rendering more than .3 years of service, retired on attaining superannuation on .0.06.2009 from the 2nd respondent estabrishment, which fr rowed the Contributory provident Fund (CpF) scheme and not

¶47

3

¶48

sN.J W.P.No.2359O of 2O20

¶49

7

¶50

a^pension scheme. Under the CpF scheme, 12.5% of the petitioner's monthly salary, consisting of basic pay and Dearness Allowance was deducted, with an equal contribution made by the employer, and the same was required to be remitted periodically to the 1st respondent trust in accordance with the EpF Act and Rules. The petitioner's PF account commenced in July 1976 with an initial contribution of Rs.130.38/-. From the accumulated contributions of Rs.11,07,586/-, the petitioner availed nonrefundable loans aggregating to Rs.7,43,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.3,64,586/- payable as on the date of retirement on 30.06.2009. However, the said amount remains undisbursed by the 1.t respondent, thereby entitling the petitloner to claim the said amount with compound interest from June 2009 till the date of payment.

¶51

(ii) The petitioner made several representations and also sought information under the RTI Act, 2OO5pursuant to which only the statement of recoveries and remittances from July 1976 to 1993 was furnished by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings

¶52

4

¶53

SN,J W.P. { ).23S9O of 2O2O

¶54

No.Hrd.A/1479/Ap/2505/ 2009, dated OB.01.i( 19, informed the 1't respondent that an amount of l.: .22,937.72/_ relating to the period from 1979 to 1993, w,r; paid to the petitioner through cheque dated 30.10.201t, though the said amount ought to have carried cumulati,( interest for more than 25 years. The petitioner thereafte_ submitted a detailed representation dated 23.Og.2O2O cl,,iming that, based on the undisbursed amount of Rs.3,64,:, i6l- and the disputed amount of Rs.55,937l- (including Rs.22,937/_ admittedly payable by the 2nd respondent), ttr I compound interest accrued thereon worked out to a t proximately Rs.9.7 lakhs as on September 2020. In st) te of such repeated rep resentatio ns, the respondents failt: I to furnish detailed audited accounts. Hence, the present !\ r t petition.

¶55

4, PERUSE DTH E RECO RD:

¶56

DISCU ION AND coNc USI N:

¶57

5 ar d un arl n ehrlf of he iti r rn u rth h ollow

¶58

u trr n tssron s:

¶59

5

¶60

SN,J W.P.No.2359O of 2O2O

¶61

(i) The petitioner, vide a detailed representation dated 07.L2.2019 and a reminder dated 23.09.2020, brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that the petitioner is a retired Manager of the 2nd respondent Bank, and the payment of provident fund due to the petitioner had been wrongly calculated by respondent No.2, and that the petitioner is entitled, as per the petitioner's eligibility, to the provident fund amount for his 34 years of service with the 2nd respondent Bank, for the amounts as under:

¶62

	Servic	e PF	Loans	Elioible Balance
1)1.1.1976toSept -1993 (Asper my informationthe eligible amount Rs.	!7^th	1,36,93	71,14,00	022,937 55,937)
2)1993 Octto1997 March (lncludingLossof payperiod) 3)1997Aprilto June 2009	4Yz Years L2 Years	74,649 8,96,00	0 6,29,OO	74,649 O2,67,0O0
Total34Year	s LL,	O7,5a6	7,43oOO	3,64,5A6

¶63

6

¶64

sN,l W.P. \ ).23590^{of 2O2O}

¶65

(ii) As^per the^{petitioner's legal entitlement' [he petitioner} is entitled to^{paymentof Rs.3,64,586/-lcgetherwith} compound^{interestfor more than ten yearsf -'} 'rn^{lune 2009} to September^{2020, and for immediateri lease of the} outstanding amount.^{However,in spite of ser'' ral reminders} and re^p rese^{ntations,the grievanceof the pel i ioner had not} been considered^{as on date, and aggrievedb" the same' the} petitioner has approached^{this Court by filir ; the present} Writ Petition.

¶66

Learned counsel^{appearingon behalf lfrespondent} No.2 fairly submits^{that the grievance ofhe petitioner'} as put forth^{vide the petitioner'sreprese I tationsdated} 07.lz.l}tg and^{23.0g.2020,may be ci'ected tobe} considered by^{respondentNo.1 herein and r:;pondentNo'2} would also^{put forth their reply to the said 9r evancebefore} respondent^{No.1 so that the subject issue cllld be decided} in accordance^{to law.}

¶67

Learned^{counselappearing on behalt of respondent} No.1 submits^{that, on earlier occasions'enc I iries had been}

¶68

7

¶69

SN,J W.P,No.23590 of 2020

¶70

conducted and reports submitted, In view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner had been submitted to respondent No.1 way back on 07.l2.2}lg and 23.09.2020, the petitioner may be directed to make a fresh representation duly enclosing all relevant documents in support of the petitioner,s case, putting forth the petitioner,s grievance as put forth in the present Writ petition and also the petitioner's representations dated 07.12.2OIg and 23.09.2020 to respondent No.1 herein, pertaining to the payment of the provident fund as per the petitioner,s legal entitlement, the incorrecily calculated provident fund, and for the release of amounts due to the petitioner as on date and the same would be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance to law, putting both the petitioner and respondent No.2 on notice.

¶71

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalF of respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶72

8

¶73

sN,l W.P. 1o.2359O of 2O2O

¶74

-:

¶75

9. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

¶76

a) The aforesaid facts and circumsl ances of the

¶77

case,

¶78

b) The submissions made by the leir^.ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, le:r ned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent N( .1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - Bank,

¶79

c) Duly taking into considera.: on Section 17(1)(a), which entitles respondent Nc.L herein to conduct an enquiry to ascertaan any cc ntravention and to initiate action as per Section 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds and lvtiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,

¶80

d) The contents of the petitioner,s representations dated 07.L2.2Ot9 and,:3.O9.2O20, addressed to respondent No.l here in, which admittedly had not been considered as on ( ate,

¶81

9

¶82

SN,J W.P.No.2359O of 2O2O

¶83

Tha Writ Pat trln !s fli nr|cad nf dira.f in thp Detition er Dut forth the qnevance of the Detiti ner as ut fort IN the Dresen Writ Petition. bv wav ofa detai led reDrese ntati n dulv enclosinq Detitio er's earlier reDrese ntations da d 07.L2.20L9 and .o9.2 e n t ed il of th endin providen t fund d ues from resDonden No.2 B nk to eti h a rth titi n r entitl emen and e incorrect ca Icu lattton of the providen tfu nd aqainst the Detitioner herei n, with full details of he am unts d etot e oetit oner a on date and ll relevant documents tn suDDOrt of the Detition er's case, to the resDondent No.1 herein within a oeri od of one(1)w eek fro the da eof recei ptofacoovoft his order. Uoon receiot, o the said reDrese ntation, resDonde t No.1 is dire dto consider the same and condu aduee outrv, o VINO notice to oth the Detitioner a nd resoo ndent o.2 herein. The resoonde t No.2 i further Dermitt ed to out lorth his reolv to the said qrievance of the peti ner before resoondent N o.1 and thereaft r 1tt

¶84

l0

¶85

SN,J

¶86

W.l) \o.23590 of 2O2O

¶87

v-i

¶88

resoondent is dir ed to Drovi eanr l roortunatv of Dersonal hearinq to both the oetitioner and also the 2nd respondent herein and after conclr r.! lino the said hea rinq, the 1't resDondent is direr edtoD ass a DDroDrr ate reason d order in a orda n ( e to law and dulv communicate the decision to both ! re oetitioner and resDondent No. 2 herein, withinao 3 'tod of three ( 3 \ w eks thar.aift er. H th r shall be no der as o ts.

¶89

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendir r in this Writ

¶90

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶91

Sc -P.C SULEKHA DEVI 45^{r TSTANT REGTSTRAR} //TRUE COPY// I

¶92

,r'

¶93

r SECTION OFFICER To '1 . The Chief Commissioner, Regional Provide Futl, Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad -5OO027.

¶94