Vishnu Ganapati Bhat V. Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment and Employees Provident Fund Organization and The Addl. Central P.F. Commissioner (HQ) and The Regional P.F. Commissioner, EPFO, Regional Office, Navanagar, Hubballi and The Regional P.F. Commissioner, EPFO, Regional Office, Peenya and Regional P.F. Commissioner, EPFO Regional Office, Koramangala and Karnataka Milk Producers Federation Ltd. and Dharwad Co-operative Milk Producers Society Union Ltd. and State of Karnataka, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries

WP/146380/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Vishnu Ganapati Bhat, a retired employee of the Karnataka Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (respondent no.7), who filed a writ petition against multiple respondents including the Union of India and the Employees Provident Fund Organization. The petitioner sought to quash a demand notice and an endorsement rejecting his application related to provident fund contributions and pension benefits. The court had previously granted similar reliefs to other employees in a related case (W.P.no.33347/2019), which influenced the current proceedings. The court's decision allows the petitioner to follow a similar process to claim his benefits, contingent upon the procedural steps of obtaining a no objection from relevant authorities and making a formal representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701746 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.no.33347/2019
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M B KANAVI; P V GUNJAL; ARAVIND KULKARNI; P N HATTI
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHNU BHAT
• Keywords: Demand notice; Pensionary benefits; Provident fund; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Endorsement Rejection

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.146380 OF 2020 (L-PF) BETWEEN: VISHNU GANAPATI BHAT, AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O: H.NO.23, \"SRI GURUKRUPA\", RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, NEAR NEW PAVAN SCHOOL, BARAKOTHARI ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, (MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066, REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (CPFC). 3. THE ADDL. CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ), ZONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA/GOA EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, \"KAVERI\" BHAVISHYA NIDHI ENCLAVE, HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013. 4. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, NO.10 BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI – 560 025, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, EPFO, REGIONAL OFICE, PEENYA, 62, 3RD CROSS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUBURB, YESHWANTPUR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 022. 6. REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, EPFO REGIONAL OFFICE, KORAMANGALA, \"ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX\", #37/1, 6TH MAIN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SINGHA SANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 068. 7. THE KARNATAKA MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., KMF COMPLEX, M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 8. THE DHARWAD CO-OPERATIVE MILK, PRODUCER’S SOCIETIES UNION LTD., LAKKAMANAHALLI, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 004. 9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1; SRI P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R9; NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE – A DATED 31.01.2019 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 REJECTING OF MY APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE – B DATED 08.09.2019. ISSUED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4, FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE – C DATED 23.03.2017 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Demand Notice issued by Respondent No.4 vide Annexure – A dated 31.01.2019 and to set aside the endorsement given by the Respondent No.4 rejecting of my application vide Annexure – B dated 08.09.2019. b) Issued A Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent No.4, for implementing the directions given by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure – C Dated 23.03.2017. c) Issue any other appropriate Writ, Orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity. 2. Sri Vishnu Bhat, Advocate, Party-in-Person submits while working with respondent no.8, petitioner retired from service as employee of respondent no.7. It was submitted, during service, petitioner had been contributing to Provident Fund. On account of increase of pensionable salary limit of Rs.5,000/- to 6,500/-, petitioner had made higher contribution and was therefore entitled for consideration of same even without formal requirement of joint option of employer and employee as there would be deemed acceptance as per Annexure-G. Since same was not - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 considered by P.F. Authorities, petitioner had filed this writ petition. 3. It was submitted, in W.P.no.33347/2019, in case of employees of respondent no.7, challenging endorsement issued by Government, rejecting claim for pensionary benefits, this Court had taken note of fact that as per various Circulars issued, Milk Federation had agreed to consider sanctioning pension to its employees, in case they agreed to surrender Provident Fund amount received. Directions issued in W.P.no.33347/2019 were as follows: “16. It may be pertinent to state here that in a similar case, the Government has permitted payment of pension vide Government Order dated 26.05.2015 to seven employees of the erstwhile KDDC on them surrendering the provident fund in the following terms: \"DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¥À¸ÀA«Äà 42 PÀºÁªÀÄ 2013 , ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.05.2015 ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¸À¯ÁzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, PɼÀPÀAqÀ 7 »A¢£À ¸ÀPÁðj qÉÊj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj/f¯Áè ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä MPÀÆÌlUÀ¼À°è/PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ-419 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ CzÀj ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj/f¯Áè ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä MPÀÆÌlUÀ¼À°è/ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¤AiÉÆÃd£É ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À°è¹zÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ CªÀjUÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¦AZÀt ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ/¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj/f¯Áè ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 MPÀÆÌlUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »A¢gÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃrzÉ. PÀæ. ¸ÀA ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ ²æÃ/²æêÀÄw ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1. PÉ.JA.°AUÀ¥Àà vÁAwæPÀ C¢üPÁj 20.18.1969 03.08.1993 ¤zsÀ£À 2. PÉ.¹zÀÝ¥Àà qÉÊj D¥ÀgÉÃlgï, zÀeÉð 2 01.10.1972 28.02.2011 ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ 3. «.¥ÀæPÁ±ï ªÉÄPÁå¤PÀ¯ï C¹¸ÀÖAmï 28.12.1972 30.11.2011 ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ 4. ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁd G¥À ªÀåªÀ¸Á×¥ÀPÀgÀÄ 01.05.1974 31.03.2013 ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ 5. ªÉÊ.f.¨sÁUÀå®PÀëöäªÀÄä Rjâ/GUÁæt C¢üPÁj 14.05.1973 30.04.2013 ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ 6. ²Ã£À ªÀÄÄSÁj C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ 30.01.1966 31.08.2000 ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ 7. r.²æãÁxÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ.Rjâ) 18.08.1972 31.07.2013 ªÀAiÉÆà ¤ªÀÈwÛ F DzÉñÀ »A¢£À ¸ÀPÁðj qÉÊjUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹ C£ÀAvÀgÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ C¢üãÀzÀ°è£À ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ f¯Áè ºÁ®Ä MPÀÆÌlUÀ¼À°è «°Ã£ÀUÉƼÀî®Ä M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ SÁAiÀÄA DV «°Ã£ÀUÉƽ¹ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå.JºÉZïJ¥sï 152 PÉr¹ 95 ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.02.2000 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ºÁ° PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä GvÁàzÀPÀgÀ ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½/ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ MPÀÆÌlUÀ¼À°è ¤ªÀÈwÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ FUÀ®Æ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. »ÃUÉ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁzÀ ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ®¨sÀåªÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è CxÀªÁ CzÀgÀ C¢üãÀzÀ°è£À f¯Áè ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä MPÀÆÌlUÀ½AzÀ CxÀªÁ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj¬ÄAzÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ C£ÀÄUÀæºÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝ®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß (¸ÀÆPÀÛ zÀgÀzÀ°è §rØAiÉÆqÀ£É) F DzÉñÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ½AzÀ PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½/¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj/¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ f¯Áè ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä MPÀÆÌlUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä ªÀĺÁªÀÄAqÀ½/¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ qÉÊj/f¯Áè ¸ÀºÀPÁj ºÁ®Ä MPÀÆÌlUÀ½UÉ »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¤AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÀÈwÛ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ¯ÉÃR¥Á®jUÉ ¦AZÀt ªÀAwPÉAiÀiÁV ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹. ªÀĺÁ¯ÉÃR¥Á®gÀ ¯ÉPÀÌPÉÌ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁr G½zÀ ªÉƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. ªÀÄÈvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁzÀjUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉƽ¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. ¸ÀPÁðj qÉÊjUÀ¼À°è£À £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉƽ¸À¯ÁzÀ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß F »AzÉ AiÀiÁzÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ²Ã¶ðPÉAiÀÄr ¨sÀj¸À¯ÁVvÉÆÛà CzÉà ¯ÉPÀÌ ²Ã¶ðPÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è EzÀPÉÌ vÀUÀ®ÄªÀ ªÉZÀѪÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß CyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ n¥Ààt ¸ÀASÉå. CE 347 ªÉZÀÑ- 4/2014 ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.11.2014 gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/- 26.05.2015 (r.J¸ï.¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ¥À±ÀĸÀAUÉÆÃ¥À£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «ÄãÀÄUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉ (¥À±ÀĸÀAUÉÆÃ¥À£É)\" 17. In the light of the fact that the KMF has already provided for sanctioning of pension to employees who had earlier taken the benefit of provident fund, it would be necessary to direct the State Government to apply the same principles and pay the pension to the petitioners after deducting provident fund and other benefits as has been done in the case of seven other employees under the Government Order dated 26.05.2015. 18. Four months' time is granted to the State Government to comply with this order. 19. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are required to pay any further sums apart from the sums that they had already received as provident fund, in order to entitle them for pension, the same shall be paid by them after adjusting the provident fund that has already been paid against the arrears of pension. 20. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.” - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 4. It was submitted instead of pressing for prayers in present writ petition, petitioner would seek to avail benefits in term of reliefs granted in W.P.no.33347/2019. 5. Sri M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri P.V.Gunjal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 6, Sri Aravind D.Kulkarni learned counsel for respondent no.8 and Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.9 in unision would submit that, for claiming said relief, petitioner would require to make representation to respondent no.7 and 9 after obtaining no objection from respondents no.3 and 4 about surrender of P.F.Amount. 6. It was submitted, since petitioner had not made any representation, he would have to make such request in first instance. Counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 stated that respondent would have no objections for petitioner claiming such relief and would facilitate same by calculating P.F.Amount received by petitioner and issuing a demand therefor forthwith. And on receipt from petitioner, they would forthwith issue no objection. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 7. In view of above, and as prayers presently sought in writ petition are not for seeking similar relief as granted in W.P.no.33347/2019, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition reserving liberty to petitioner to make a representation to respondents no.7 and 9 seeking for similar reliefs as granted to petitioners in W.P.no.33347/2019, after obtaining no objection from respondents no.3 and 4. 8. Respondents no.3 and 4 to issue a demand notice to petitioner within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, petitioner is required to pay any amount, same shall be paid by petitioner within a period of eight weeks, thereafter and taking note of same respondents no.3 and 4 shall issue endorsement/no objection to petitioner, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. After receipt of no objection, if petitioner submits representation to respondents no.7 and 9 appending copy of ‘no objection’ and ‘order passed in W.P.no.33347/2019’, respondent no.7 and 9 to consider same and pass - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12984 WP No. 146380 of 2020 appropriate orders within an outer limit of three months under intimation to petitioner. 10. Respondents no.7 and 9 would be at liberty to seek for any further information from petitioner within said time. With observations as above, writ petition is disposed of. In view of disposal, pending applications are disposed of as unnecessary. Sd/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 "