IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28669 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M. SANTHA, ATTENDER, CATH LAB MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11, RESIDING AT KAROTTUKONAM, MELEVILA VEEDU, KOTTAMUGAL, NALANCHIRA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-15. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 2. THE KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY, GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, RED CROOS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, -DO- ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28669/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an employee in the second respondent and was also a member of the Provident Fund Organisation. Contributions were being made by her as also the employer to the provident fund account. She had availed of a loan while in service and some of it were re-paid as well. Petitioner's grievance stems from the fact that, according to her, contributions and withdrawals have not been correctly noted in her provident fund account and it seems that her account was confused with the account maintained by another employee bearing a similar name. Petitioner refers to Ext.P2 to substantiate her contention. To Ext.P8 reply sent by the second respondent, stating that the contribution for several years and months were not available in their records, petitioner sent Exts.P9 and P10 to the Managing Director of the second respondent employer. This was followed by Ext.P11 containing a request for correction W.P.(C).28669/2008 2 of the anomalies, pointing out that unless these are rectified, petitioner would suffer a serious detriment in so far as her provident fund account is concerned and no action was forthcoming. Writ petition was filed inter alia challenging Exts.P2 and P8 communications and seeking a direction to the respondents to rectify the EPF account of the petitioner and disburse the amount due to her on her retirement. 2. A statement has been filed by the Provident fund Assistant Commissioner inter alia contending that there is no error in the provident fund account maintained by the petitioner and a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating her contentions. 3. In my view, a re-consideration of the petitioner's contention is necessary at the hands of the first respondent. There is substance in the contention of the petitioner, that errors have probably occurred in the account of the petitioner by the EPF Organisation on account of the similarity of the petitioner's name with W.P.(C).28669/2008 3 another employee serving in the same category at the same time. In the result, writ petition is disposed with the following directions. (i). Petitioner shall submit a comprehensive representation pointing out the error, which according to her, has permeated the account which she maintains with the first respondent, Organisaiton, and produce documents in support thereof. This shall be done within one month from today. (ii). Thereafter, first respondent shall conduct an enquiry, hear the objections and then, if the petitioner's contentions are found to be justified, suitable rectification shall be made in the account, at any rate, a reasoned order shall be passed by the first respondent on the petitioner's objections. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. (iii). If the petitioner is still dissatisfied with the action taken by the first respondent as aforementioned, it is open to W.P.(C).28669/2008 4 her to pursue such remedies as are available to her in law. (iv). If the petitioner makes a request to summon any document in the possession of the second respondent, first respondent shall summon the same and second respondent will be obliged to produce the same before the first respondent, subject to availability of the same. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs