RAJENDRA PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 33,469/- to the petitioner allegedly withheld by them under the pretext of income tax deduction together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to deposit Rs. 74,500/- with the opposite party No. 4 immediately towards their Provident Fund Contribution and directing the opposite party No. 4 to recover the entire Provident Fund amount outstanding in petitioner's P.F. No. UP/6791/10 together with 10% compound interest thereon w.e.f. the year 1998-1999 till date of its actual payment from the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and for quashing the letters dated 22.06.2005 and 31.10.2005 (Annexure Nos. 3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition). The petitioner has also sought compensation for hardship and suffering caused to him as a result of conduct of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.

(2.) Brief facts of the case emerging out from the pleadings of the parties are that the Board of Governors of the Institute of Tool Room Training, U.P., Lucknow hereinafter referred to as "ITTUP", which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and established in the year 1979 resolved in its meeting held on 20.05.1980 for staring Contributory Provident Fund Schemes and Formation of Trust for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Trust Deed of ITTUP Provident Fund Trust was executed on 28.04.1986 and an amount of Rs. 11,69,994/- was transferred by the ITTUP to the said trust on 31.03.1986 towards its contribution as well as that of the members of the Trust. All the employees of ITTUP including the petitioner gave their consent to form the Trust. It is noteworthy that although on the date of the establishment of the ITTUP Provident Fund Trust, the ITTUP was already covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", but the said information was not communicated to the ITTUP till the date of formation of the Trust. The fact that the provisions of the Act had been made applicable to the ITTUP came to its knowledge for the first time in the year 1985 when a letter in this regard dated 26.02.1985 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was received by the ITTUP. The ITTUP vide letter dated 08.05.1985 requested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Income Tax Officer for exemption from the operation of the Act. By letter dated 19.07.1985, ITTUP requested the State Government for exemption of the Provident Fund Trust under Section 17 (1) of the Act. The Income Tax Authorities granted exemption to the Provident Fund Trust from the provisions of the Income Tax Act. In the meantime, since no decision was taken by the concerned authorities on the application of ITTUP for being exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Act, several reminders were sent by the ITTUP to the concerned authorities but without any response. The exemption application of the ITTUP is still pending.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor (Workshop Practice) in the ITTUP by an order dated 09.03.1981. The petitioner borrowed a non-refundable loan of Rs. 74,500/- against his Provident Fund Account maintained by the ITTUP Provident Fund Trust. The petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 23/24.11.1998. The petitioner challenged the order terminating his services before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1226 (S/S) of 1999, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2007. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 4856 (S/S) of 2000 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents in the said writ petition to pay the entire provident fund amount of the petitioner and to furnish him with updated passbook and the annual statements of his Provident Fund account. This Court vide order interim dated 04.09.2000 passed in the aforesaid writ petition required the petitioner to apply to the Provident Fund Commissioner for release of his provident fund and to fill up the necessary forms and Provident Fund Commissioner was also directed to complete all the formalities and to ensure the payment of provident fund amount to the petitioner.