Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Thru General v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 1 on the back of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.4.1996 is quashed.
- Para 88. Accordingly, the present matter is remitted back before the respondent no. 1- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Lucknow, who shall decide the matter of the petitioner within a period of three months from today after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. All the…
Judgment
Petitioner :- Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Thru General Manager Respondent :- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Lucknow And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Rajey, Krishna Kumar Pandey, Sri Shailendra Srivastava Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
As per office report date 12.8.2024, notice has been served upon the respondent no. 4 but none is present on behalf of the respondent no. 4 today.
Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice of recovery dated 6.5.2004 as received on 23.11.2004 (contained in Annexure No. 3 to the petition), impugned order dated 22.7.2003 passed under Section 7-A of the Act 1952 (Contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) and the impugned notice dated 9.8.2001 (Contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.4.1996 passed by the opposite party no. 1 as contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition)."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in para 21 of the writ petition it is stated that no notice under Clause - 26-B of the Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Clause-7 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 was ever issued to the petitioner. As the petitioner is adversely affected by the impugned order, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to pass any order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is ggrieved.
The above pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been replied in para -20 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 ,which indicates that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and there is vague denial. The respondent has not stated anywhere that any opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 1 on the back of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.4.1996 is quashed.
Consequences to follow.
Accordingly, the present matter is remitted back before the respondent no. 1- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Lucknow, who shall decide the matter of the petitioner within a period of three months from today after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. All the pleas are open to the parties to raise before the respondent no. 1/authority concerned who shall consider and decide the same.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed. . . Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Anuj Singh [Brij Raj Singh, J.] ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.