SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition to impugn the circular dated 19th June, 2008. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). The petitioner was also exercising power as an Authority under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the purpose of deciding the disputes arising under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act").

(3.) On 30th January, 2009 this Court had directed that no departmental action should be taken against the petitioner in relation to the issuance of arrest warrants on the parties in respect of the subject proceedings pending before him. On 28th April, 2009 a statement was made by the petitioner that the petition is a public interest litigation and the office was accordingly allowed to process it. On 5th November, 2009 Amicus Curiae was appointed to espouse the cause of the petitioner. The office thereafter has re-registered the petition as Public Interest Litigation No. 45 of 2009. By order of 10th March, 2010 the guideline No. 3 of the Circular dated 19th June, 2008 was directed not to be given effect to until further orders.