MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned speaking orders dtd. 27/2/2024 and dated NIL (Annexures P-8 and P-9, respectively) vide which although the claim of the petitioners was allowed for release of the differential amount of PF which was deducted but not deposited by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, however, the claim of the petitioners for grant of interest @ 12% was not allowed in terms of Sec. 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing respondent no.2 to grant interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioners in terms of Sec. 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that petitioner No.1 retired from the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 31/8/2022, whereas petitioner No.2 retired from the post of Street Light Patroller on 30/11/2022. During their service tenure from the year 2013 to 2023, Provident Fund contributions were regularly deducted from their salaries and arrears, including benefits arising out of the 5 th Pay Commission by the respondent/Corporation, however, the deducted amounts were not deposited in their respective Provident Fund accounts. He further submits that at the time of retirement, only 90% of the Provident Fund amount was released to the petitioners and the remaining dues were illegally withheld on the pretext of reconciliation. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent/Corporation itself acknowledged the lapse on its part and issued directions dtd. 28/2/2022 for clearance of the dues. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations dtd. 14/8/2023 and 1/11/2023 (Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively). However, when no action was taken thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.27010 of 2023 and CWP No.27003 of 2023, which were disposed of vide orders dtd. 1/12/2023 with a direction to the respondents to pass speaking orders within a period of eight weeks and to release the payable amount. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the speaking orders dtd. 27/2/2024 and dated NIL (Annexures P-8 and P-9, respectively). Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that although the respondents in the said orders have admitted the delay as well as their liability, yet they have arbitrarily restricted the payment of interest to the "government notified rates" i.e. 7%, instead of granting statutory interest @ 12% as contemplated under Sec. 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. He further submits that the impugned orders are illegal and unsustainable as the respondents despite admitting the delay and withholding of Provident Fund dues have failed to grant the statutory interest to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents have adopted a wholly discriminatory approach by granting interest @ 10% to similarly situated employees namely Parduman Singh, Ashwani Kumar and Satpal and interest @ 12% to one Subhash, Superintendent, whereas the petitioners have arbitrarily been restricted to interest @ 7%, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners submitted fresh representations dtd. 24/3/2025 and 26/3/2025. (Annexures P-10 and P-11), however, no action has been taken thereupon till date.

(3.) Mr. Gian Chand Garg, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and filed Memo of Appearance, which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.