SMT. KIRAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Rajesh Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. J. Pandit, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State Shri J.K. Pillai, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents to pay the amount of Employees Provident Fund from the initial date of appointment along with interest. A direction is also sought for against the employer to pay penal interest with compensatory cost.

(2.) It is not in dispute that petitioner was an employee with respondent no. 2 institution. In respect of his nature of appointment, it can safely be held that he would be covered by the Provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952. An enquiry is conducted by which institutions are found and covered by the provisions of the said Act. However, it has to be inquired into that what benefit under the provisions of the said Act as per Section 7-A may be available to the petitioner. The aforesaid aspect can be looked into by respondent no. 3.

(3.) In that view of the matter, in place of going into the factual disputed questions of fact, it would be appropriate to dispose of the petition with the following directions :