N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. By presenting this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ and a direction against the respondent-Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited, to make payment of the amount of provident fund to the petitioner with interested at the rate of 18%, which is withheld by the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Head Clerk in the Accounts Department at the Ahmedabad Office of the respondent-Corporation. He retired from his service with effect from 31.01.2012 on reaching age of superannuation. The petitioner pleaded in the petition that all throughout he discharged the duties diligently. Upon his retirement, the respondent-employer issued office order dated 16.02.2012, whereby it sanctioned Rs. 3,71,640/- to the petitioner towards contributory provident fund as per C.P.F. Rules. In that order, it was mentioned inter alia that Rs. 72,607/- was withheld. By communication dated 31.08.2012, the petitioner sought for a clarification as to on what basis the said amount was withheld and kept deposited, requesting the respondent to pay the same with interest at the earliest. It appears that the respondent-Corporation responded by reply dated 18.10.2012, wherein it was stated that a case relating to interest and damages to be payable by the Corporation was pending before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi and the amount in question would be paid to the petitioner after the decision in the said case. The petitioner reverted with letter dated 22.10.2012 asking about the details of the case, further asking the respondent to clarify as to between whom the same was pending. The Corporation did not respond. The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition.

3. The respondent-Corporation filed affidavit-in-reply to the petition. It contended that after it was registered under the Companies Act in the year 1978, it had requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to recognize it for the purpose of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Rules, but the request was turned down. After long gap, the authority addressed letter dated 15.02.2005 stating that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the Corporation and were applied with effect from 01.01.2005 with retrospective effect. The Corporation appears to have deposited certain amount for particular period. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued notice dated 16.11.2009 asking the Corporation to deposit Rs. 3,72,71,827/- towards interest under Section 7-Q and Rs. 6,89,76,544/- towards damages under Section 14-B of the Act, aggregating to Rs. 10,62,49,371/-. The Corporation resisted the liability, but the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by order dated 11.11.2011, rejected the case of the Corporation. The Corporation has challenged said order dated 11.11.2011 by filing Appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi.

3.1 It is further stated in the affidavit that in the said Appeal, interim relief is granted to the appellant. In paragraph-9 of the affidavit, the stand of the respondent precisely evinced was under:

"Considering the said factual and legal aspects and more particularly financial liability of Rs. 10,62,49,371/- fixed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Ahmedabad, it is though fit to withhold a proportionate amount payable to retiring employees towards Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The respondent No. 1 submits that in view of this, an amount of Rs. 72,607/- payable to the petitioner herein is withheld pending the proceeding before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. It is pertinent to note that such proportionate amount from the retiral benefits is withheld in case of in all 264 employees who have retired or resigned from the employment of the Corporation. It is stated as against withheld amount, the petitioner herein is already monthly pension under the Scheme by the Regional Provident