[2026:RJ-JP:7271]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20344/2025 M/s S. Brothers Facility Management, E-93, Govindpuri, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur Pincode- 302019 Through Partner Smt. Savitri Jena Wife Of Late Shri Shambhu Nath Jena, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of E-127, Govindpuri, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Labour And Employment Ministry, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nidhi Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

3. Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund Department, Nidhi Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. Lakshay Sharma and Mr. Shubham Rohilla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

16/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 29.07.2025, passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Vidhyadhar Nagar, the Appellate Authority under Section 7(I) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’), was dismissed, being barred by limitation.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner preferred an S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20291/2023 (Smt. Savitri Jena Vs. EPFO) before the High Court against the impugned notices dated 28.06.2022, 21.09.2023 and 25.07.2023. The learned counsel further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed off the said writ petition vide order dated 14.03.2024, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952, within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order i.e. 14.03.2024. He further submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal under the liberty granted by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, and the respondents were under an obligation to decide the appeal on merits. However, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily dismissed the appeal holding that to be time barred, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal of the appeal being time barred, deserves to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that on filing of the earlier writ petition by the petitioner, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024, granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of the order i.e. 14.03.2024, however, the petitioner filed an appeal on 27.03.2025, i.e., after a lapse of a period of more than one year, therefore, the Appellate Authority barred by limitation.

4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and also perused the impugned order.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952 with a challenge to the impugned notices dated 28.06.2022, 21.09.2023 and 25.07.2023. As per the provisions of Act of 1952, the limitation for filing the appeal is sixty days.

6. On filing of the earlier writ petition by the petitioner, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of one month from the date of order dated 14.03.2024 and the Appellate Authority was expected to decide the appeal on merits. The petitioner in view of the Court order dated 14.03.2024, was under an obligation to file an appeal within a period of one month, but he did not file the appeal within the given time and the same was filed after a lapse of more than one year, therefore, the Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner as time barred.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and no merits in the present petition.

8. Accordingly, this wri