Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

R.Venkatachalapathy vs The Management Of

Madras High Court|13 September, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

By the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken for final disposal.
2.The petitioner has been working as a Special Grade Driver in the first respondent Corporation. As he is a member in the Employee's Provident Fund Organization, the employee's and employer's contribution are all deducted / made every month towards the Provident Fund scheme. The accumulation of employee's contribution shall be given to the employee at the time of his retirement along with due interest thereof. Moreover, the accumulation of the employee's contribution shall also be taken to the Pension Fund from which the employee is given pension after his retirement under the Pension Scheme.
3.There is a provision permitting every employee to avail loan with a condition that the same should be refunded by the employee with due interest fixed for the loan. But, in this case, the advance availed by the employee from the employee's contribution need not be repaid by the employee. As per Clause 68-J of the scheme framed under the E.P.F. Act, 1952, the petitioner is also entitled to get advance from the accumulation of employee's contribution for medical expenditures and other needs.
4.Under such circumstances, the petitioner met with an accident on 09.06.2017 and also went on medical leave without salary. He spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards his medical expenditure. Therefore, the petitioner had made an application to the first respondent on 24.08.2017 seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) as advance. The same has not been considered.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sufficient accumulation of amount in both employer's and employee's contribution. Since, the said application of the petitioner has not yet been considered, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.
6.Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing counsel, who takes notice for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner had already availed a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand only) in the year 2015.
7.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner, this Court hereby directs the first respondent to consider the pending application filed by the petitioner dated 24.08.2017, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs.
To
1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam region, Kumbakonam.
2.The Executive Trusty, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, ( Kumbakonam) Limited, Employees provident Fund Trust, O/o. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ( Kumbakonam)Ltd, Kumbakonam. . 
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R.Venkatachalapathy vs The Management Of

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
13 September, 2017