The High Court · 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI D.RAGHAVENDAR r AO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI ROHIT POGULA The Court made the following ORDER 7 IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA i THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA AT HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No.23590 OF 2O2O DATE:. 22.L2.2O25 BETWEEN: G. C. Giddaiah alias Gideon Gadi And The Chief Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500027 and another. . . Petitioner .. Respondents ORDER Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri D Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel appearing on 2 sN.l W.P No.23S9O of 2oio behalf of respondent No.1, and Sri llohat pogula, learned counser appearing on beharf : F respondent No.2. 2,7 n DTaver as unde r: e( :! 'urt seekino "... to issue order or orders, writ 3r writs, more pa rticula rly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents .r su bm it the detailed audited accounts From 19r 6 to till date of his retirement on 30_06_2009 arr I to pay the undisbursed amount of Rs.3,64,586 al rng with admissible interest from 01_01_1976 t<t till the date of payment and be pleased to pass,.. , 3 f h ti on r a o r ln su t f as under: t rs oert fir '.t I bv the a e r t rt _ Petition is (i) The petitioner, after rendering more than .3 years of service, retired on attaining superannuation on .0.06.2009 from the 2nd respondent estabrishment, which fr rowed the Contributory provident Fund (CpF) scheme and not I I 7 3 sN.J W.P.No.2359O of 2O20 a pension scheme. Under the CpF scheme, 12.5% of the petitioner's monthly salary, consisting of basic pay and Dearness Allowance was deducted, with an equal contribution made by the employer, and the same was required to be remitted periodically to the 1st respondent trust in accordance with the EpF Act and Rules. The petitioner's PF account commenced in July 1976 with an initial contribution of Rs.130.38/-. From the accumulated contributions of Rs.11,07,586/-, the petitioner availed non- refundable loans aggregating to Rs.7,43,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.3,64,586/- payable as on the date of retirement on 30.06.2009. However, the said amount remains undisbursed by the 1.t respondent, thereby entitling the petitloner to claim the said amount with compound interest from June 2009 till the date of payment. (ii) The petitioner made several representations and also sought information under the RTI Act, 2OO5pursuant to which only the statement of recoveries and remittances from July 1976 to 1993 was furnished by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings 4 SN,J W.P. { ).23S9O of 2O2O No.Hrd.A/1479/Ap/2505/ 2009, dated OB.01.i( 19, informed the 1't respondent that an amount of l.: .22,937.72/_ relating to the period from 1979 to 1993, w,r; paid to the petitioner through cheque dated 30.10.201t, though the said amount ought to have carried cumulati\,( interest for more than 25 years. The petitioner thereafte_ submitted a detailed representation dated 23.Og.2O2O cl,,iming that, based on the undisbursed amount of Rs.3,64,:, i6l- and the disputed amount of Rs.55,937l- (including Rs.22,937/_ admittedly payable by the 2nd respondent), ttr I compound interest accrued thereon worked out to a t proximately Rs.9.7 lakhs as on September 2020. In st) te of such repeated rep resentatio ns, the respondents failt: I to furnish detailed audited accounts. Hence, the present !\ r t petition. 4, PER USE DTH E RECO RD: DISCU ION AND coNc USI N: 5 d n ehrlf of r u rth h u trr n tssron s: 5 SN,J W.P.No.2359O of 2O2O (i) The petitioner, vide a detailed representation dated

07.L2.2019 and a reminder dated 23.09.2020, brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that the petitioner is a retired Manager of the 2nd respondent Bank, and the payment of provident fund due to the petitioner had been wrongly calculated by respondent No.2, and that the petitioner is entitled, as per the petitioner's eligibility, to the provident fund amount for his 34 years of service with the 2nd respondent Bank, for the amounts as under: 1) 1.1.1976 to Sept - 1993 (As per my information the eligible amount Rs. 2) 1993 Oct to 1997 March (lncluding Loss of pay period) 3) 1997 April to June 2009 Service PF Loans Elioible Balance !7 th 1,36,937 1,14,000 22,937 74,649 55,937) 74,649 8,96,000 6,29,OOO 2,67,0O0 4Yz Years L2 Years Total 34 Years LL,O7,5a6 7,43 oOO 3,64,5A6 6 sN,l W.P. \ ).23590 of 2O2O (ii) As per the petitioner's legal entitlement' [he petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.3,64,586/- lcgether with 'rn lune 2009 compound interest for more than ten years f -' to September 2020, and for immediate ri lease of the outstanding amount. However, in spite of ser'' ral reminders and re p rese ntations, the grievance of the pel i ioner had not been considered as on date, and aggrieved b" the same' the petitioner has approached this Court by filir ; the present Writ Petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf lf respondent No.2 fairly submits that the grievance of he petitioner' as put forth vide the petitioner's represe I tations dated 07.lz.l}tg and 23.0g.2020, may be ci'ected to be considered by respondent No.1 herein and r:;pondent No'2 would also put forth their reply to the said 9r evance before respondent No.1 so that the subject issue cllld be decided in accordance to law.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalt of respondent No.1 submits that, on earlier occasions' enc I iries had been 7 SN,J W.P,No.23590 of 2020 conducted and reports submitted, In view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner had been submitted to respondent No.1 way back on 07.l2.2}lg and 23.09.2020, the petitioner may be directed to make a fresh representation duly enclosing all relevant documents in support of the petitioner,s case, putting forth the petitioner,s grievance as put forth in the present Writ petition and also the petitioner's representations dated 07.12.2OIg and 23.09.2020 to respondent No.1 herein, pertaining to the payment of the provident fund as per the petitioner,s legal entitlement, the incorrecily calculated provident fund, and for the release of amounts due to the petitioner as on date and the same would be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance to law, putting both the petitioner and respondent No.2 on notice.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalF of respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. -: 8 sN,l W.P. 1o.2359O of 2O2O

9. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumsl ances of the case, b) The submissions made by the leir .ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, le:r ned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent N( .1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - Bank, c) Duly taking into considera.: on Section 17(1)(a), which entitles respondent Nc.L herein to conduct an enquiry to ascertaan any cc ntravention and to initiate action as per Section 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds and lvtiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, d) The contents of the petitioner,s representations dated 07.L2.2Ot9 and,:3.O9.2O20, addressed to respondent No.l here in, which admittedly had not been considered as on ( ate, 9 SN,J W.P.No.2359O of 2O2O Tha Writ Pa t !s fli nr|cad nf a.f in Detition er Dut forth the qnevance of the Detiti ner as ut fort IN the Dresen Writ Petition. bv wav ofa detai led reD rese ntati n dulv enclosinq Detitio er's earlier reDrese ntations da d il of th n providen t fund d ues from resDonden No.2

07.L2.20L9 .o9.2 B nk to t e a h titi n r ca Icu lattton of e incorrect entitl emen providen tfu nd aqainst the Detitioner herei n, with full details of he am unts d etot e oetit oner a date and ll relevant documents tn suDDOrt of the Detition er's case, to the resDondent No.1 herein within a oeri od of one(1)w eek fro the da eof recei ptofacoovoft his order. Uoon receiot, o the said reDrese ntation, resDonde t No.1 is dire consider the same and condu aduee outrv, o VINO notice to oth the Detitioner a nd resoo ndent herein. The resoonde t No.2 i further Dermitt ed to o.2 lorth his reolv to the said qrievance of ner before reso ondent N o.1 and thereaft r 1tt l0 SN,J W.l) \o.23590 of 2O2O v-i resoondent is dir ed to Drovi eanr l roortunatv of Dersonal hearinq to both the oetitioner and also the 2nd respondent herein and after conclr r.! lino the said hea rinq, the 1't resDondent is direr dtoDe a DDroDrr ate reason d order in a orda n ( e to law and dulv communicate the decision to both ! re oetitioner and resDondent No. 2 herein, withinao 3 'tod of three 3( \ w eks th shall be no er. H th r ar.aift der as o ts. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendir r in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// I Sc -P.C SULEKHA DEVI 45 r TSTANT REGTSTRAR ,r' To '1 . The Chief Commissioner, Regional Provide r SECTION OFFICER Futl, Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad -5OO027. Hyderabad -500001.

2. The Manager, Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited, Troop Bazar, 3. One CC to SRI P.NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPr] lj 4. One CC to SRI D.RAGHAVENDAR RAO, Advocate [O: JC] 5. One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA, Advocate (OpUC) 6. Two CD Copies SA/PMK C.C. TODAY i 4il .q\ O l)- G .'<. ) !,-11, s; 1 j7 x' F'i -a .' .t, i -t )i! HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212025 ORDER WP.No.23590 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ,a)