Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 Date of decision: February 14, 2011 Phulla Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruit Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Mahender Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner-Phulla Ram is an unfortunate person facing sufferance due to careless and unhelpful attitude of the respondents. Perhaps this his fate, because he is a son of lowly placed employee who worked as sweepress and is no more. The petitioner, her son, is struggling to get her provident fund since 1996, the year his mother died. She was working in the office of Haryana Tourism Corporation, District Karnal (respondent No.3). The petitioner being the legal heir Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -2- of his mother applied for grant of all the benefits due and had completed all the formalities. The respondents released the ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,980/- on 19.2.2001. No other dues were released. The petitioner had completed all the formalities and the respondents gave him assurance for the payment of entire amount within a period of 4/5 months. The petitioner claims to have filed many representations in the office of respondent No.3 besides paying number of visits, but the remaining payments have eluded him. As per the petitioner, the whole responsibility of the family has fallen on him and has disclosed the name of all the LRs of late employee to say that they are dependent upon him. The petitioner served a legal notice on 2.7.2007, but still he has not received any response. Except for informing that his case has been forwarded to Head Office nothing has followed. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has also been impleaded as respondent No.4, as the Provident Fund is lying with him. The issue in the present writ petition relates to payment of Employee Provident Fund (EPF). As per the reply filed, respondent Nos.2 & 3 would maintain that no dues are pending against the answering respondents, but at the same time would disclose that only EPF amount is pending in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'RPFC') Chandigarh. It is also disclosed that the case of the petitioner was forwarded by the answering respondents to RPFC, Chandigarh, through their letter Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -3- No.HTC/ SD-V/ 66173, dated 30.11.1999. It is then stated that the objections were raised by the RPFC through his letter dated 23.12.1999This fact statedly was brought to the notice of the petitioner on 28.8.2007 in response to the legal notice. The objections as raised by the RPFC were also intimated to the petitioner with the request to submit the documents as demanded by the RPFC. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 had also sent a letter dated 20.3.2008 to the petitioner for submitting form after removing the objections, so that his claim can be forwarded to RPFC for releasing the payment. It is stated that the gratuity amount of Rs.20,540/- was paid to the petitioner on 29.10.2001 in addition to the ex-gratia amount of Rs.20,982/-. Once the gratuity amount has been released to the petitioner being LR of the deceased employee, it is not understood as to how and what objections are being raised for payment of the EPF amount. Since this aspect of the matter was not clearly coming out from the contents of the reply, respondent Nos.2 & 3 were required to file an additional affidavit as to when the case was sent to the RPFC and how and for what reason, the claim has not been satisfied so far, so as to fix responsibility for this inordinate delay in releasing the amount of this poor lowly placed employee. In additional affidavit filed by Sh. S.N. Roy, Managing Director, Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd., it is disclosed that the EPF amount is pending in the office of RPFC and the case was forwarded to the RPFC, Chandigarh on 30.11.1999. It is stated that the same was returned on 23.12.1999 with some objections. As per Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -4- respondent No.2, in the meantime the intimation was given to the petitioner to submit the documents as demanded by the office of RPFC. No document, however, has been placed on record or even referred in support of this assertion. It is obviously a made up and false statement. This plea apparently is now raised to justify the delay on the part of respondent Nos.2 & 3. If they had sent any intimation, the copy of the same could easily have been annexed with the reply. In fact, respondent Nos.2 & 3 have callously failed to perform their respective statutory duties and responsibilities. Apparently, they have failed to pay requisite attention because it is a case of poor employee, who would have no/low priority with them. The respondents have not cared to even consider the case till the receipt of legal notice dated 2.7.2007. One can well imagine the plight of petitioner. He would have made endless rounds to the office of his employer each time to be shuned to come later. I would, thus, accept the averments made in the petition that the petitioner had made several rounds to the office of the respondent- employer for release of this amount, but the respondents have been callous, insensitive & careless in not attending to the request of the petitioner which was in fact his need. Is this treatment, a fate of the petitioner, because he is a poor person? The mother of the petitioner was working as Sweeperess. That would explain the attitude of the respondents. The RPFC has also apparently failed to perform its legal and bounden duties. When asked to confirm as to what would be the amount due for payment to the petitioner, both the counsel appearing Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -5- for the respondents are found unaware. I can assume, it would not be a fortune for which the respondents would need assurances and have caused this delay to release the amount. This will explain further as to how the claims of the poor people are being treated. There has been total non-application of mind and callous and casual approach on the part of the respondents to consider the valid claim of the petitioner. The objections raised by the RPFC for not releasing the EPF amount, would sound hollow as can be seen, which are as under:- “i. Certificate of age (in original) with two attested copies showing date of children not submitted by the claimant. ii. Saving bank account number with Punjab National bank or State Bank of India not mentioned in the claim form, which was to be mentioned by the claimant. iii. Date of Birth certificate of member (Smt. Chooti Devi) along with documentary proof not submitted by the claimant. iv. From 10D (pension papers) not filled up in respect of Bhiro Devi, Pritam Ram & Bhateri Devi (children of Smt. Chooti Devi). v. Succession certificate not submitted by the claimant. vi. Marital status of children of Smt. Chhoti Devi Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -6- not submitted.” Frivolous nature of the objection is apparent. Gratuity and ex-gratia have been paid to the petitioner. Still, he is being asked to produce succession certificate. The amount payable has been withheld for the last 15 years for opening an account in Punjab National Bank. Date of birth of the late employee would be available in the records and still the petitioner was being asked to submit the same. One would fail to understand as to why marital status of children would be needed. In the process, 12 years have gone. The amount has been withheld and retained by the respondents. There is, thus, an immediate need for adopting some extraordinary measure to end further agony and wait of this poor employee struggling to get his dues. No further time can be granted to the respondents and there is need to direct release of the amount immediately. Respondents No.2 & 3 would forward the same claim, which the petitioner had submitted on 30.11.1999 and this will be considered as valid claim and the EPF amount lying in the name of the late mother of the petitioner, shall be released within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of claim by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. This amount would carry interest @ 16% per annum from the date it is due till the date of payment and it shall be released with the amount of EPF. Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 would be jointly liable to pay this interest. Respondent-State would recover the interest from the employees concerned, who are responsible for this callous delay. Respondent-State would also ensure that the person responsible for this delay is made answerable for failing to Civil Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2008 -7- perform his duties and appropriate action, including disciplinary action, is taken against all persons responsible. Outcome of the proceedings shall be brought to the notice of the Court by the Advocate General, Haryana, within next three months, by moving an appropriate application. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. February 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE