IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. No.34752/2010 (S – R) BETWEEN:
Sri S Sathyanarayana s/o Sri B V Srikanthaiah aged about 64 years (retired from service in Reserve Bank of India) r/a Flat No.003, Poorna Palace Apartments 12th `A’ Cross, 2nd Main J P Nagar, Bangalore-56078. … Petitioner (By Sri Subba Rao Sr.Counsel for Sri M Subramanya Bhat, Advocate).
AND:
1. The Reserve Bank of India Represented by its Governor Central Office Mumbai – 400001.
2. The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India General Administration Department No10/3/8, Nrupathunga Road P B No.5467 Bangalore-560 001.
3. The General Manager (Banking) Reserve Bank of India General Administration Department No.10/3/8 Nrupathunga Road P B No.5467 Bangalore-560001. ... Respondents (By Sri R V S Naik, Sr.Advocate with Sri Nitin Prasad, Sri Vidur Nair, Sri A J Ravi Shankar for M/s.King & Partridge, Advocate for R1 to R3) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records of the case from the respondents, quash the endorsement dated 6.6.2007 vide Annexure-E as the said order of attachment is illegal, arbitrary and in utter violation of law and direct the Reserve Bank of India to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02 paise with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1.6.2001 till the date of payment.
This writ petition having been heard and reserved on 26.7.2019 and coming on for pronouncement of order this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction quashing the endorsement No.DAPM.NO.566/07.06.002/2006-07 dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-E) as the said order of attachment is illegal, arbitrary and in utter violation of law: and b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Reserve Bank of India to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02 paise with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.6.2001 till the date of payment; and (c) Direct the contesting respondents to pay the petitioner costs of these proceedings and (d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk Grade-II on 8.9.1965. He earned promotion to the post of Manager. While he was working in the Issue/Cash Department of the Reserve Bank of India (for short “the RBI”), he opted for voluntary retirement from service on 31.5.2001. He was relieved from service by taking an application from him under Early Severance Scheme. Petitioner had submitted a letter requesting to refund his provident fund balance amount on 1.12.2001 and respondent – RBI had also authorized to deduct from his provident fund balance amount, the dues payable by him to RBI. On 10.10.2001/11.10.2001, during the course of compiling of stock of currency chest note held in main Vault-I notes aggregating to Rs.50,50,000/-
were found missing. On verification, it was found that currency notes were missing at the time when the petitioner was custodian of Vault, respondent – RBI registered a police complaint on 13.10.2001 interalia against the petitioner. Respondent – RBI initiated disciplinary proceedings by framing charge memo on 23.5.2002. Charge memo reads as under:
“3. You are therefore, charged with having committed the acts of grave misconduct by:
(i) Abstracting cash worth Rs.50,50,000/- from the Bin referred to in para 2(ii) above;
(ii) Tampering with Bank’s records so as to cover up the grave misconduct as at 3(i) above; and (iii) Not adhering to procedures prescribed in paragraphs 12 and 64 of Chapter III of Issue Department Manual, 1972 edition, regarding monthly verification/complaining as referred in 2(v) above.”
3. Respondent – RBI filed a suit in OS No.3983/2002 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against petitioner for recovery of Rs.50,50,000/- together with interest thereon. The aforementioned matter is pending consideration.
4. In disciplinary proceedings, Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved. The aforesaid report dated 12.1.2006 was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority. It was concluded in imposing penalty of withholding of pension on permanent basis.
5. Petitioner had filed a writ petition in WP No.7495/2004 seeking for a direction to respondent – RBI to pay the provident fund amount of Rs.8,85,000/- to him and writ petition was allowed in part. On 24.1.2007, writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to pay provident fund amount of Rs.8,85,000/- to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order (Annexure-D). Both the petitioner and respondent – RBI preferred writ appeals, which were numbered as WA No.615/2007 and WA No.390/2007 respectively. WA No.615/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in respect of prayer of the petitioner to the extent of pension. WA No.390/2007 filed by the respondent – RBI was withdrawn. Thus order passed in WP No.7495/2004 attained finality. In this back ground, respondent – RBI issued an endorsement dated 6.6.2007 by which provident fund balance amount of Rs.8,85,079/02 was paid by way of adjustment and set off against his liability of Rs.50,50,000/- payable to the respondent – RBI. Petitioner was thereby called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.41,64,920/98. In this background, respondent – RBI amended the plaint in OS No.3983/2002 to deduct the said amount from its claim which was permitted as per the Trial Court’s order dated 29.10.2007. The amended claim amount is now Rs.36,73,226/98.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the endorsement dated 6.6.2007, petitioner filed a contempt of court case in CCC No.393/2007. On 16.3.2009, Division Bench proceeded to drop the contempt proceedings by considering the scope, purport and validity of endorsement dated 6.6.2007.
7. Petitioner still being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in CCC No393/2007 preferred a special leave to appeal, which was numbered as Spl.Leave Appeal (Civil) CC No.7317/2010. On 11.5.2010, the said special leave appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy as may be available in law. Thus, petitioner has presented the present writ petition questioning the validity of communication/endorsement dated 6.6.2007 while alleging that it was an order of attachment, which was impermissible in law and also that the earlier order passed in WP No.7495/2004 had not been complied.
8. In the inquiry, petitioner was punished by imposing the punishment of permanent withdrawal of the petitioner’s pension, which was the subject matter in WP No.305/2008. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 6.3.2012. Consequently, WA No.1548/2012 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration. Hence, the present petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 6.6.2007 alleging that it was an order of attachment, which was impermissible in law and direction issued in WP No.7495/2004 was not complied with. Learned Single Judge had specifically directed the concerned Authority to release the provident fund to the petitioner instead of complying with the direction for payment of provident fund. Respondent – RBI proceeded to adjust the provident fund amount, which is due to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02 on the score that a sum of Rs.50,50,000/- is missing. In this regard, the charges against the petitioner have been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. The criminal matter is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court. It was submitted that unless and until determination of loss of Rs.50,50,000/- is proved in accordance with law. Adjusting the provident fund amount, which is due to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02 is arbitrary and illegal. Unless and until, there is determination that petitioner has caused loss to respondent – RBI. The question of deduction/adjustment do not arise.
10. It was further contended that even though in CCC No.393/2007, the Division Bench has considered whether there was any compliance of the order passed in WP No.7495/2004 or not. Division Bench in contempt matter has not apprised any validity of the endorsement dated 6.6.2007, what has held is the contempt of court case has not been made out and that there is no willful disobedience in issuing endorsement stating that petitioner’s provident fund balance amount of Rs.8,85,079.02 was paid by way of adjustment and set off against his liability of Rs.50,50,000/-. The contentions are that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that in CCC No.393/2007, Division Bench has examined the validity of endorsement dated 6.6.2007. The validity of endorsement dated 6.6.2007 cannot be examined in the contempt of court case. Scope of contempt of court case is limited to the extent whether the order of the learned Single judge has been complied or not. Division Bench in CCC No.393/2007 proceeded to hold that there is no willful disobedience of the respondent – RBI in issuing endorsement. Therefore, the contentions of the respondent – RBI that writ petition is not maintainable. Resjudicata principles are attracted in the present writ petition. Contention of the respondent – RBI that resjudicata principle is applicable to the present petition, is incorrect for the reason that petitioner never questioned the validity of the endorsement dated 6.6.2007 in writ jurisdiction, so also he has not questioned the validity of endorsement in contempt proceedings. In the contempt proceedings, it was only brought to the notice of non-compliance of the order passed in WP No.7495/2004 in not releasing provident fund. In the aforesaid writ petition, there was no direction to the respondent – RBI to adjust provident fund amount, if there is any due on behalf of the petitioner. What has been directed is to pay the provident fund amount to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent – RBI cannot circumvent the Court order/direction. Thus, contention of the respondent – RBI that resjudicata principle attracted in the present petition is liable to be rejected.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of prayer in the present petition relates to quashing of endorsement and further direction submitted that there is no provision for attachment or adjustment under the Provident Fund Act read with Rule. Respondent – RBI has not disputed that whether if there is any provision under the Provident Fund Act so as to withhold a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02. Respondents have not apprised this Court under what Authority and under which provision of law such deduction has been ordered. In the absence of any specific provision, respondents have exceeded its jurisdiction in adjusting provident fund amount of the petitioner towards Rs.50,50,000/- stated to have been missing, for which, petitioner is responsible. In the disciplinary proceedings, respondents have not ordered for recovery of alleged loss of Rs.50,50,000/-. On the otherhand, they have filed a civil suit in order to over- come certain administrative difficulties.
12. Overall submissions of the petitioner are that respondent – RBI have issued endorsement relating to adjustment of petitioner’s provident fund due to the alleged loss or missing amount of Rs.50,50,000/-. The impugned endorsement is not supported by any provision of law. On the otherhand, Provident Fund Act prohibits for any attachment or adjusting recovery of any dues. Therefore, action of respondent No.1 in issuing endorsement is contrary to provisions of the Provident Fund Act.
13. In support of the petitioner’s prayer, he has cited the following decisions:
1. AIR 1976 (SC) 1163 (para Nos.9, 10, 11) – Union of India –vs- Jyoti Chit Fund.
2. AIR 1952 (SC) 227 (para No.16) – Union of India – vs- Smt.Hira Devi.
3. 2003 (10) Laws (Mad) 137 (para Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11) – Sathiyabama –vs- Palaniswamy.
4. AIR 1965 (Mysore) 303 (para Nos.14, 16, 17 and 19) – Abdul Waheedkhan Puthan Soudhagar –vs- Mrs.Reny Charles Pavey and another.
` 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that petitioner had given a letter requesting that his provident fund amount be adjusted to the amount payable to the respondent – RBI. Therefore, respondent – RBI proceeded to issue an endorsement adjusting provident fund of the petitioner towards alleged loss/missing amount of Rs.50,50,000/-. Petitioner was charge sheeted in domestic enquiry and it was found that petitioner was guilty of the charges. Consequently, his pension was stopped. Stopping of pension is the subject matter before this Court, wherein petitioner suffered an order passed in WP No.305/2008. Further, petitioner has filed WA No.1548/2012 which is pending consideration. This Court in CCC No.393/2007 has affirmed the endorsement dated 6.6.2007. Thereafter, petitioner had filed Special Leave Appeal (Civil) CC No.7317/2010. The said matter was withdrawn seeking liberty to avail appropriate remedy. In this background, writ petition is not maintainable as it suffers from principles of resjudicata under Explanation VIII to Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. Endorsement dated 6.6.2007 was the subject matter in CCC No.393/2007, wherein it is discussed elaborately. Further before the Supreme Court, respondents have not been heard and Special Leave Appeal (Civil) CC No.7317/2010 was withdrawn by giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Such liberty would not preclude the respondents from raising the plea of constructive resjudicata. On 20.10.2001 and 2.11.2001, petitioner has given confessional statement. Respondents have relied on the following decisions:
1. 1970(1) SCC 673 (para – 8) – Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple –vs- Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu.
2. Kalipadade –vs- Vijayadwipada Das of the Privy Council reported in 1929 Law Reports 24 (internal pages 27 and 28).
3. 2006(4) SCC 683 (para 32) – State of Karnataka – vs- All India Manufactures Organisation.
4. 1999 (5) SCC 590 (paras 26 and 27) – Hope Plantations Limited –vs- Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another.
15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
16. Employee Provident Fund Organization is an organization to assist the Central Board of Trust, a statutory body formed by the Employees Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. EPF Scheme basically aims to promote savings to be used at post retirement by various employees across the country. EPF is collection of funds contributed by the employer and it is an employee regularly on monthly basis. The employer and employee contribute 12% each of employee of salary (basic + DA) to the EPF. These contributions earned on fixed level of interest set by the EPO. Amount of interest to be received on the deposit along with totally accumulated amount is totally tax free i.e. employee may withdraw the entire fund without worrying about paying any tax on it. Accrued amount may also withdraw by the nominee or legal heirs of the employee on his death or can be withdrawn by the employee himself on post resignation.
17. Sub-section (c), (e) and (f) relate to contribution, employer and employee under Section 2 of the Act, 1952. Definition is as under:
“(c) “contribution” means a contribution payable in respect of a member under a Scheme (or the contribution payable in respect of an employee to whom the Insurance Scheme applies;
(e) “employer” means.-
(i) in relation to establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent;
(f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of [an establishment], and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, [and includes any person,-
(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment;
(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment;] 18. Section 10 relates to protection against the attachment, which is extracted hereunder:
“10. Protection against attachment.-(1) The amount standing to the credit of any member in the Fund [or of any exempted employee in a provident fund] shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member [or the exempted employee], and neither the official assignee appointed under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909), nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), shall be entitled to, or have any claim on, any such amount.
(2) Any amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund or of an exempted employee in a provident fund at the time of his death and payable to his nominee under the Scheme or the rules of the provident fund shall, subject to any deduction authorized by the said Scheme or rules, vest in the nominee and shall be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or the nominee before the death of the member of the exempted employee [an shall also not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any court].] [(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the [pension] or any other amount payable under the [Pension] Scheme [an also in relation to any amount payable under the Insurance Scheme] as they apply in relation to any amount payable out of the Fund.] 19. Section 12 relates to employee not to refuse wages. Extract of the same reads as under:
“12. Employer not to reduce wages, etc.- No employer in relation to [an establishment] to which any [Scheme or the Insurance Scheme] applies shall, by reason only of his liability for the payment of any contribution to [the Fund or the Insurance Fund] or any charges under this Act or the [Scheme or the Insurance Scheme], reduce, whether directly or indirectly, the wages of any employee to whom the [Scheme or the Insurance Scheme] applies or the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age pension, gratuity [provident fund or life insurance] to which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment, express or implied.]”
20. Questions for consideration in the present petition are:
a) Whether the principle of resjudicata or constructive resjudicata are attracted or not in respect of endorsement dated 6.6.2007 vide Annexure-E?
b) Further, petitioner has made out a case for interference in respect of endorsement dated 6.6.2007 in the present case or not?
c) What order?
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that endorsement dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-E) was not the subject matter of any litigation. In otherwords, it was not the subject matter of any writ petition. It was placed on record in CCC No.393/2009 to highlight that there is violation of order passed in WP No.7495/2004 to the extent of releasing provident fund a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02. Reason for production of endorsement dated 6.6.2007 in contempt matter is to point that respondents have violated the order passed in WP No.7495/2004. It was also contended that merely some observations or discussion of endorsement dated 6.6.2007 in CCC No.393/2007 that does not amount to validity of the endorsement was questioned or upheld in contempt proceedings.
22. Scope of contempt proceedings is limited to the extent that whether accused has willfully disobeyed the order or direction of the Court in a particular case or not. Therefore, contention of the respondents that present petition suffers from maintainability on the resjudicata principle is not attracted, whereas respondents vehemently contended that having regard to the decision in CCC No.393/2007 read with withdrawal of Spl. Leave Appeal (Civil) CC No.7317/2010, present petition suffers from resjudicata, since in contempt matter, this Court examined the validity of endorsement elaborately and held that complainant has not made out a case.
23. Perusal of the contentions of both the petitioner and the respondents, it is to be noted that petitioner had the benefit of order passed in WP No.7495/2004, wherein a specific direction has been given to respondents to pay provident fund amount of Rs.8,85,079.02 to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order (Annexure-D), whereas respondents in the guise of recovery proceedings of Rs.50,50,000/-, which was the subject matter of litigation in OS No.3983/2002 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru read with criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner, an endorsement has been prepared adjusting provident fund balance amount of Rs.8,85,079.02 to the petitioner. Such endorsement is not in terms of direction rendered by this Court in WP No.7495/2004.
24. Scope of contempt is required to be examined with reference to Section 9 of the Contempt of Courts Act. That apart, in CCC No.393/2007, limited question was whether respondents have complied the order passed in WP No.7495/2004 or not? Contempt Court cannot give direction or sit on the endorsement or its validity could be gone into. In the case of B N Manoharprasad –vs- N Rathnamraju reported in (2004) 13 SCC 610, wherein the Supreme Court held that in contempt proceedings no further direction can be issued by the Court. In case, it is found that there is violation of the order passed by the Court, the Court may punish the contemnor otherwise notice of contempt is to be discharged. An order passed in the contempt petition cannot be a supplement order to the main order granting relief. In the cited decision (Supra), disposing of contempt matter and no jurisdiction to direct the Authorities and State Government to sanction the post. Therefore disposal of contempt matter in the present case is neither upholding endorsement or rejection of petitioner’s plea that he is entitled to provident fund amount. What has been decided is there is no willful disobedience. Before Supreme Court, case was withdrawn with liberty.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on Explanation VIII of Section 11 of CPC reads as under:
“Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.”
26. The aforesaid provision is not attracted with reference to the cited decisions on behalf of respondents for the reason that factual aspect of the preset matter is entirely different from the cited decisions. In the present case, principle of resjudicata is not attracted since endorsement dated 6.6.2007 in the present petition for the reasons that merely it was taken note of by the Contempt Court in CCC No.393/2007 that does not mean that there was challenge to the endorsement dated 6.6.2007 in the contempt proceedings. Such reference and discussion in the contempt matter only to the extent whether direction issued in WP No.7495/2004 has been complied or not? Where an authority is directed to consider as a matter (e.g. an application) and pass appropriate orders, there is compliance if the authority does consider matter and passes an order although the order might be erroneous. The erroneous order may be questioned in an independent proceedings but will not constitute a ground for invoking the contempt jurisdiction. It is held in the case of J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganapat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291 that the contempt proceedings cannot be converted into writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no willful disobedience where the authorities pass an order consequent upon the Court directing them to do so even though the order is not in confirming with the direction of the Court. Correctness of an order passed by a statutory authority cannot be examined under the contempt jurisdiction as held in the case of Brahma Dev Tiwari vs. Sri Alok Tandon (2004) 1 ESC 256 (All). More over, provision –Explanation VIII of Section 11 of CPC is crystal clear that an issue heard and decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction competent to decide such issue, shall operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit. Hence, contention of the respondents that present writ petition to be dismissed on the principle of resjudicata is not made out, since endorsement dated: 06.06.2007 was not the subject matter in a writ petition and Contempt Court is not the appropriate Court to decide the validity of endorsement dated 06.06.2007. Accordingly, present writ petition is maintainable insofar as challenging the validity of order dated 6.6.2007.
27. Whether endorsement dated 6.6.2007 pursuant to the direction in WP No.7495/2004 is in order or not? Respondents have not apprised any provisions of law to buttress the impugned endorsement except that petitioner is due to the respondents a sum of Rs.50,50,000/- in connection with alleged charges relating to misappropriation of aforesaid amount. It is to be noted that petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and it was concluded in imposing penalty by withdrawing of pension on permanent basis. Alleged misusing of sum of Rs.50,50,000/- is the subject matter of criminal proceedings, wherein petitioner is stated to have confessed before the police and recovery proceedings have been initiated by filing original suit before the jurisdictional Court. In this background, respondents are not correct in adjusting the provident fund amount of Rs.8,85,079.02 with reference to alleged to have misappropriated sum of Rs.50,50,000/-. Provident fund amount of Rs.8,85,079.02 of the petitioner cannot be recovered, adjusted or stalled in the absence of any specific provision either in the Regulations or in the Provident Fund Act and Rules. Therefore, issuing an endorsement while adjusting the provident fund amount to the alleged to have misappropriated sum of Rs.50,50,000/- is arbitrary and contrary to the Provident Fund Act and Rules. The provident fund amount of an employee is like a pension. Supreme Court and High Courts time and again held that there cannot be any recovery of any dues of employer from the provident fund amount. Petitioner could have withdrawn the provident fund, when he took voluntary retirement on 31.5.2001 in not withdrawing the provident fund amount is for the reasons that he had the benefit of good amount of interest. Therefore, he did not withdraw the provident fund as on 31.5.2001. Respondents contended that petitioner had submitted a letter stating that if any due to the respondents, it could be recovered. Such letter cannot be read in the context of recovery/adjustment from provident fund amount. Even assuming that petitioner had submitted such letter requesting to recover his provident fund amount adjusting the dues payable to the respondents. Such undertaking would be contrary to the Provident Fund Act and Rules, where there is no provision, so also in the respondents’ Regulation. In view of the facts and circumstance, respondents have committed an error by implementing the order passed in WP No.7495/2004 when the Court specifically directed the respondents to release the provident fund amount of the petitioner, which was bounden duty of the respondents to release the provident fund amount instead of any adjustment. If the respondents are of the view that such adjustment was necessitated. In such an event, respondents should have filed a review of the order passed in WP No.7495/2004 or sought for clarification as to such adjustment could be made or not. Respondents are circumvented the order of the Court in issuing endorsement dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-E). Respondents have not pointed out any legal decision to sustain the order dated 6.6.2007. Cited decisions on behalf of respondents do not assist them for the reasons and factual aspects of the present case are entirely different. In the present case, there is no challenge to endorsement dated 6.6.2007 on two occasions so as to attract principle of resjudicata. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Provident Fund Act or departmental Regulation, there is no provision for recovery/adjustment of provident fund amount, which is due to the employee/officer. Cited decision on behalf of petitioner only in the case of Union of India –vs- Jyothi Chit Fund reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 1163 - para 11 has some relevancy, whereas other citations are not relevant to the facts of the case. Petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with endorsement dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-E).
ORDER Considering the case in totality, this Court is of the view that the respondents have acted in contravention of the order passed in W.P. No.7495/2004 dated 24.1.2007 and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents for issuing endorsement dated 06.06.2007. The endorsement passed by the respondents had been in contravention of not only the order of the Court but also provisions of Provident Fund Act. Accordingly, endorsement dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure-E) is set aside. Respondents are hereby directed to disburse the provident fund of the petitioner in a sum of Rs.8,85,079.02 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.