SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
Chief Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Alok Kumar Agarwal & Anr. – Respondents
LPA 486 of 2021 & LPA 124 of 2022
Decided On : 14-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, for the Appellants in LPA 486/2021.
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate, for R-1 in LPA 486/2021.
Ms. Nidhi Banga, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate, for R-2/UOI in LPA 486/2021.
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant in LPA 124/2022.
Ms. Nidhi Banga, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate, for R-2/UOI.
Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, for R-2 to 4.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that no interest shall be payable on the EPF amount after a period of 36 months from the date it becomes payable as per the provisions of paragraph 60(6) and paragraph 72(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.

Headnote:

EPF - Provident Fund Interest - EPF Scheme, 1952, paragraph 60(6), paragraph 72(6) - The court discussed the provisions of paragraph 60(6) and paragraph 72(6) of the EPF Scheme, emphasizing that no interest shall be payable on the amount in the EPF account after a period of 36 months from the date it becomes payable. The court also highlighted the duty cast on the EPF Authorities under paragraph 72(1) to make prompt payment of the provident fund amount. The judgment dismissed the claim of the appellant/petitioner and quashed the imposition of costs in LPA No. 486/2021.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired employee, sought interest on his EPF amount for the period from 1.12.2017 up to 28.12.2018. The respondent authorities denied the interest on the ground that the EPF account had become inoperative from December, 2017. The petitioner approached the court seeking various reliefs including payment of interest and quashing of the impugned actions by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no legal justification to deviate from the proposition of law that no interest shall be payable on the EPF amount after a period of 36 months from the date it becomes payable. The court dismissed the claim of the appellant/petitioner and allowed LPA No. 486/2021 to the extent of quashing the imposition of costs.

Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the EPF amount and the applicability of provisions of paragraph 60(6) and paragraph 72(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no interest shall be payable on the EPF amount after a period of 36 months from the date it becomes payable as per the provisions of paragraph 60(6) and paragraph 72(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.

Final Decision: The appeals along with all the pending applications were disposed of accordingly, with the dismissal of LPA No. 124/2012 and the quashing of the imposition of costs in LPA No. 486/2021.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J.

1. This common judgment shall decide the two above noted cross-appeals preferred by the parties as per Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as applicable to the High Court of Delhi, thereby assailing the Impugned Judgment dated 20 September 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in `Alok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 2759 of 2021, whereby although the Writ Petition was dismissed, costs have been imposed upon the respondent authorities.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. In a nutshell, the petitioner initially joined Centre for Railway Information System (CRIS) in November 1990 as Deputy Chief Engineer and later he migrated to private sector in 1996, and eventually retired as Chief Operating Officer from the Business Standard Limited 31 October 2014. During the course of his long period in service, both the petitioner and his employer contributed to the Employees Provident Fund1[EPF] and it is an admitted fact that his last contribution to the EPF was in November, 2014. The grievance of the petitioner in the main Writ Petition, now as appellant in LPA No. 124/2022, is that soon after retirement on 31 October 2014, he had not withdrawn his provident fund amounting to Rs. 1,41,62,650/- until December, 2018. It is stated that his online provident fund account status did not reveal whether his provident account was inoperative or closed on any date so much so that interest for the financial year 2017- 18 was also not updated until November, 2018, and therefore, he was unaware if interest after November, 2017 having been stopped or the account becomes inoperative. It is stated that despite having his email address, mobile number and address details, besides a valid KYC as per UAN card, the respondents never sought any information from him and that charging of interest had been stopped w.e.f. December, 2017; and therefore, he applied for final withdrawal immediately in December, 2018 upon noticing such facts and only then was he informed that his account had become inoperative from December- 2017.

3. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to interest on the total amount of EPF outstanding i.e. Rs. 1,41,62,650/- for the period commencing 01 December 2017 up to 28 December 2018 either at EPF interest rate i.e. interest @ 8.55% per annum for the period from 01 December 2017 up to 31 March 2018, or @ 8.65% per annum from 01 April 2018 up to 28 December 2018 or at the applicable bank rate of interest in the alternative without prejudice. To cut the long story short, the petitioner sent a communication dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-3) calling upon the respondent to pay interest accordingly, the same was declined by the respondent No.4 vide impugned letter dated 22 April 2019 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that the EPF account had become inoperative from December, 2017 and interest was not payable, and his subsequent application to the Central Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi vide email dated 26 May 2020, routed through Grievance Management System (GMS) was also declined vide impugned reply/email dated 25 June 2020 (Annexure P-7 colly) on the ground of applicability of provisions of paragraph 72(6) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme2[EPF Scheme], 1952, framed under the Employees. Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in Writ Petition bearing No. 2759/2021 seeking the following reliefs:

    "(i) Allow the instant Writ Petition;

    (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby declaring that the provisions of 7section 72(6) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 are not attracted to the facts of the present case so as to deny the rightful and legitimate interest on the total withdrawn EPF amount of Rs.1,41,62,650/of the Petitioner for the period from 1.12.2017 up to 28.12.2018;

    (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any othe


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top