[2026:RJ-JD:8490-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1849/2025

1. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd., Through Its The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd, 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur.

2. The Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd., 4 Meera Marg, Udaipur.

3. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Ltd., Provident Fund Trust, 4 Meera Marg, Udaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Mahendra Singh Khamesara S/o Shri Sohan Lal Ji, R/o 42, Residency Road, Udaipur.

2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Officer, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Chitrakut Nagar, Bhuvana, Udaipur.

3. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organizaion, Bhavishay Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Dave HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

16/02/2026

1. There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

3. Challenge is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.07.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and directed for refund of the amount withheld along with interest.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. submits that they could not explain their aspect before the learned Single Judge as no one appeared on their behalf. However, he submits that in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manipal Academy of Higher Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner¹, the amount of PF contribution towards earned leave could not have been released and the same would not be treated as part of the basic wages. He therefore submits that the amount was rightly deducted from his PF payments by the department.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has invited our attention to the communication sent by the Regional PF Commissioner to the Trustee Secretary, Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that since the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the letter sent by the Regional PF Commissioner and the judgment passed in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (supra), there was no occasion for the department to take a different view.

6. We have noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (supra) has observed as under -

“12. The term ’basic wage’ which includes all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment can only mean weekly holidays, national holidays and festival holidays etc. In many cases the employees do not take leave and encash it at the time of retirement or same is encashed after his death which can be said to be uncertainties and contingencies. Though provisions have been made for the employer for such contingencies unless the contingency of encashing the leave is there, the question of actual payment to the workman does not take place. In view of the decision of this Court in Bridge Roof’s case (supra) and TI Cycles’s case (supra) the inevitable conclusion is that basic wage was never intended to include amounts received for leave encashment.

13. Though the statute in question is a beneficial one, the concept of beneficial legislation becomes relevant only when two views are possible.

14. The appeals deserve to be allowed which we direct. But if any payment has already been made it can be adjusted for future liabilities and there shall not be any refund claim since the fund is running one. There will be no order as to costs.”

7. Considering the final order passed by the Hon’ble Su