Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
MANOJ KUMAR A.P., SARAVANAN T.K, SHIBI V.P., JINU BANARJEE, BAJITH M.P., LIGGY BENJAMIN, DEEPA K.V., JOBY JOHN A., JINESH T JOHNSON, JIJI T., SUBASH V.R. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2452 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BOBY THOMAS, SRI.G.MOTILAL, SRI.PAUL T. SAMUEL, SRI.WINSTON K.V, SRI.BINU BOSE
For the Respondents: SRI.AKHIL SURESH, SC
The court affirmed the right of employees to access their Provident Fund loans, ruling against arbitrary delay in disbursement by the employer.
Headnote:The writ petition concerns the disbursement of Provident Fund Loans to employees of the KSRTC, highlighting the arbitrary refusal by the respondents. The petitioners contend the funds belong to them. The court determined that withholding loans on unspecified dates is unjustifiable, mandating disbursement within four months. The court ruled that the Provident Fund must be disbursed as owed to the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employees are entitled to access provident fund loans. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. employer's inability to disburse loans based on financial issues is discussed. (Para 3) |
| 3. court mandates disbursement of loans within defined time. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 The petitioners are employees of the KSRTC. They have submitted applications seeking Provident Fund Loan from their Provident Fund account. The respondents are not disbursing the loan.
2. The petitioners state that the refusal of the respondents to disburse loan from their Provident Fund account is highly arbitrary and unsustainable. The petitioners have applied for Provident Fund loan in order to meet urgent needs. The Provident Fund amount in the accounts is petitioners' own money. The respondents cannot decline grant of loan.
3. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition on behalf of the KSRTC. On behalf of the KSRTC, Standing Counsel denied all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that the KSRTC is facing some financial issues and is trying to generate sufficient funds to pay dues to its employees. The KSRTC has prepared a priority list in this regard. The petitioners' applications will be considered when their turn comes.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
5. It is to be noted that Provident Fund amount in the credit of the Provident Fund accounts of the petitioners is contributions made by the petitioners themselves. Therefore, the respondents will not be justified in stating that they will give the Provident Fund Loan only on an undefined future date.
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the Provident Fund Loan amount to the petitioners as is found payable to them, within a period of four months.
Sd/-
