CHIEF PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. ALOK KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment shall decide the two above noted cross-appeals preferred by the parties as per Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as applicable to the High Court of Delhi, thereby assailing the Impugned Judgment dtd. 20/9/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in 'Alok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 2759 of 2021', whereby although the Writ Petition was dismissed, costs have been imposed upon the respondent authorities. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

(2.) In a nutshell, the petitioner initially joined Centre for Railway Information System (CRIS) in November 1990 as Deputy Chief Engineer and later he migrated to private sector in 1996, and eventually retired as Chief Operating Officer from the Business Standard Limited 31/10/2014. During the course of his long period in service, both the petitioner and his employer contributed to the Employees Provident Fund [EPF] and it is an admitted fact that his last contribution to the EPF was in November, 2014. The grievance of the petitioner in the main Writ Petition, now as appellant in LPA No. 124/2022, is that soon after retirement on 31/10/2014, he had not withdrawn his provident fund amounting to Rs.1,41,62,650.00 until December, 2018. It is stated that his online provident fund account status did not reveal whether his provident account was inoperative or closed on any date so much so that interest for the financial year 2017-18 was also not updated until November, 2018, and therefore, he was unaware if interest after November, 2017 having been stopped or the account becomes inoperative. It is stated that despite having his email address, mobile number and address details, besides a valid KYC as per UAN card, the respondents never sought any information from him and that charging of interest had been stopped w.e.f. December, 2017; and therefore, he applied for final withdrawal immediately in December, 2018 upon noticing such facts and only then was he informed that his account had become inoperative from December-2017.

(3.) The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to interest on the total amount of EPF outstanding i.e. Rs.1,41,62,650.00 for the period commencing 1/12/2017 up to 28/12/2018 either at EPF interest rate i.e. interest @ 8.55% per annum for the period from 1/12/2017 up to 31/3/2018, or @ 8.65% per annum from 1/4/2018 up to 28/12/2018 or at the applicable bank rate of interest in the alternative without prejudice. To cut the long story short, the petitioner sent a communication dtd. 28/2/2019 (Annexure P-3) calling upon the respondent to pay interest accordingly, the same was declined by the respondent No.4 vide impugned letter dtd. 22/4/2019 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that the EPF account had become inoperative from December, 2017 and interest was not payable, and his subsequent application to the Central Provident Funds Commissioner, New Delhi vide email dtd. 26/5/2020, routed through Grievance Management System (GMS) was also declined vide impugned reply/email dtd. 25/6/2020 (Annexure P-7 colly) on the ground of applicability of provisions of paragraph 72(6) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 [EPF Scheme], framed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in Writ Petition bearing No. 2759/2021 seeking the following reliefs: