The High Court · 2023

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction, or more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Resporident No. 1 in issuing lmpugned Order No. 1 dated 30 August 2023, lmpugned Order No. 2 dated September 2023 and lmpugned Order No. 3 dated 31 May 2024 (collectively referred to as lmpugned Orders) rejecting the Petitioner's claim for transfer of his Provident Fund dues to his new employer is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, '1952, the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and Article '14 and Article 3004 of the Constitution of lndia, '1950, and consequentially direct the transfer of his PF Account in accordance with the Transfer claims dated 12 August 2024 and 19 tvlay 2024 along with such other orde(s) as this Honble court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to suspend the lmpugned Order No. 1 dated 30 August 2023, rpugned Order No. 2 dated September 2023 and Impugned Order No. 3 dated ,1 May 2024 issued by Respondent No. '1 Pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. MANINI BHARATI, REPREST NTING SRI BOKARAO LOKESHWAR RE -' )Y Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. SURENDER RED I f, S.C. FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: - The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.29768 of 2024

04.L2.2025 Between: Bijay Kumar Pandey AND The Regional P. F.Commissioner, Hyderabad, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad and another ORDER: ...Petitioner ... Respondents The petitioner chdlenges three orders dated 30 August 2023, September 2023, and 31 May 2024, by which respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner's request to transfer his Provident Fund dues to his new employer. He claims the orders are illegal, arbitrary, and violate the EPF Act, 1952, the EPF Scheme, 1952, and Articies 14 and 3OOA of the Constitution. He seeks a direction to transfer his PF account as per his transfer claims dated 12 August 2024 and 19 May 2024, along with any other appropriate orders.

2. Heard Ms.Manini Bharati, learned counsel representing Mr.Bokarao Lokeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and L 2 Srt S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel tr EpFO. perused the record.

3. Thc case of the petitioner is that petitionr:r. was appointed as Manager of respondent No.2-Company, which is rr: istered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous pr: risions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act"). It is further stated that he worr< rd there from r4m May, 2079 to 2"d August, 2O2l and was formalll relieved on 25rr October, 202 1. Although pF amounts were deductcr from his salary, the employer allegedlv failed to deposit both is orvn and the employee's contributions. Artcr resigning and movir I to Bangarore for new empl0yment, the petitioncr sought to transfer hi r pF account and filed an online Transfer claim Form (Form 13) on rl rrr August, 2023. on 30d August, 2023, the claim was rejected on th(, yolrnds rhat the Date of Exit did not match, contributions were rell :cted only up to october 2079, and his father's name differed. He fir: I a grievance on 2"d september 2023, stating that the emproyer ha<r < educted but not deposited the PF amounts. On l0d September 2023, t re grievance was closed with a brief note that the employer must prc\ Lde clarification. The petitioner filed another Form 13 on rgth May 2_ 24, but this too was rejected on 31"r May 2024 for the same reasorl ;, including the remark that the claim was already settled. Aggrieved rlr the same, he lrled the present writ petition. ,1^ r' 3

4. I-earned counsel for the petitioner flurther submits that the issue involved in this ',vrit petition is squarely covered by the order dated

22.O8.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3205B of 2023, wherein ir was held that arr emplol'ee cannot be denied transfer of PF accumulation merely because the previous employer defaulted in remitting contributions. It is submitted that a similar order may be passed even in this case.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, for respondent No.1 placed on record instructions dated O5.12.2025 issued by the Assistant P.F.Commissioner(Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization, wherein it is stated that Form 13 was transferred to BG/BNG I 1645396111281 for an amount I I of Rs.7 ,49 ,420/ - on O 1 . 12.2025 and informed to the petitioner through Mail on 03.12.2025.

6. Considering the submissions made and in view of the instructions placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel lor EPFO stating that the petitioner's Form-13 has already been processed and the Provident Fund amount of Rs,7,49,42O / - has been transferred to BG/BNG/1645396111281 on O1.12.2025, and the same has been duly communicated to the petitioner on 03.12.2025, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. +

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, r that the Provident Fund transfer has been complerr :cording the fact L Horvever, it is open to the petitioner to rvork out his remedies in acc ;rdance \vith lau' if any further gricvance persists. No order as to costs. Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending in t ris writ petition shall stand closed. a , SD/.A.H.S GOWRI SHANKAR ASSI ITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// $EhTrON OFFTCER '1 . The Regional P F. Commissioner, Hyderabad, Bhavish anidhi Bhawan, No 3-4-7 63, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI BOKARAO LOKESHWAR REDDY, Adv,r ;ate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDY, S.C. for EPFO [ )PUC] 4. Two CD Copies To MP { HIGH COURT DAT 1D:0811212025 I rl: S7 'lir .s I I \..'1i' \., 13 BrC lI \.-'-r'.r,- , ORDER WP.Nc, 29768 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE V\ RIT PETITION WIT HOUT COSTS 3\ ta\rt-