Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12891
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
Mahendra Singh Khamesara – Appellant
Versus
The Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 6844/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Dave
For the Respondents: Mr. U.S. Gehlot
Deductions from retirement benefits are impermissible without employee fault, as established by previous Supreme Court decisions.
Headnote:(A) Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Judgments of the Supreme Court referenced - The deduction of Rs.87,899/- from provident fund dues of the petitioner for overpayment in prior contributions was challenged as arbitrary. The court found that petitioner did not misrepresent information leading to contributions and that legal precedent prohibits such deductions absent fault. (Paras 3, 8, 9)
(B) Recovery - Legal Position - The Supreme Court ruling prohibits recovery in absence of fault on employee's part as cited in relevant judgments. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the deduction made by RSMM from his provident fund dues post-retirement, arguing that the deduction was in violation of existing legal precedents.
Findings of Court:
The court accepted the petition and ordered the refund of the deducted amount along with interest due to lack of fault by the petitioner.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the deduction from the petitioner’s retirement benefits without any misrepresentation on his part.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that deductions from retirement benefits cannot occur where there is no fault of the employee, upholding the principles set forth in previous Supreme Court rulings.
Result: Present writ petition merits acceptance; deduction reversed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to non-compliance with provident fund contributions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arbitrariness and lack of fault in deduction processes. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. clarification on employer responsibilities. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. interpretation of supreme court judgments on deductions. (Para 8) |
| 5. court’s final order on the return of deducted amounts. (Para 9) |
Order
03/07/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the deduction of Rs.87,899/- made by the respondent-Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘RSMM’) from the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner.
3. Briefly noted, the facts involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent-RSMM on the post of of General Manager and retired from the services upon superannuation on 31.08.2015. While the petitioner was working in the respondent No.1-Department, contributions were made by the employer towards the Provident Fund account of the petitioner. The petitioner has never misrepresented or filed any application for payment of contribution by the employer towards his Provident Fund account and the employer-RSMM, on their own, has continued to make such contributions towards the Provident Fund account of the petitioner. After the retirement of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.87,899/- was found to be short in the payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. When the petitioner inquired about the said short payment, it was informed to the petitioner that such deduction was made in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education vs. Provident Fund Commissioner (Civil Appeal No.1832/2004) and the order of the FA/RSMM dated 14.10.2015. Hence being aggrieved by such deduction, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deduction of the amount of Rs.87,899/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttak & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCR 13. He submits that the petitioner has never misrepresented or furnished any incorrect information to the employer RSMM for deposition of contribution towards his Provident Fund and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for any such contribution and he cannot be penalized by way of recovery effected from his retiral dues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the Employees Provident Fund Organsation has also written to the respondent-RSMM stating therein that the recovery effected by the respondents is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to pay the withheld amount of Rs.87,899/- along with interest.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have withheld the amount in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (supra). However, he very fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before deducting the amount from his retiral benefits.
6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant records of the case.
7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner superannuated from the services of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Department from the post of General Manager. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not misrepresented or furnished any wrong information for deposition of the contribution by the employer towards his Provident Fund. It appears that the employer– respondents, on their own accord, continue
