FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner Mr. Alok Kumar Agarwal began working as a Deputy Chief Engineer at the Centre for Railway Information System (henceforth “CRIS”) in November 1990. He resigned as Manager (Technical Services) in January 1996. When the Petitioner started working at CRIS, his EPF account was opened. After that, the Petitioner started working as a Manager (Systems) at Business Standard Limited (BSL), New Delhi, from February 1st, 1996. of the age of fifty-seven, the Petitioner left his position as Chief Operating Officer (COO) of BSL in October of 2014. The Petitioner made his final EPF account contribution on 31 October 2014. On October 16, 2017, the petitioner moved his EPF balance from CRIS to BSL, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolkata, confirmed this. It is claimed that the Petitioner’s EPF account stopped working in December 2017. After that, on December 18, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Form 19 claim for the ultimate withdrawal of the entire EPF accumulation after realizing he had not received interest payments for the period past November 2017. 

In order to settle the claim, interest was permitted for 36 months from the Petitioner’s retirement, or until November 2017, when the Respondent Authority credited the whole amount of Rs. 1,40,87,869/-to the Petitioner’s account on December 21, 2018. Therefore, the Petitioner then requested the interest for the period from December 1, 2017, to December 28, 2018, via correspondence to the RPFC, Kolkata, dated February 28, 2019. Respondent No. 4 rejected the same, as shown in the digitally signed document by DEVANSHU JOSHI. Signing Date: September 20, 2021, 17:25:23 challenged letter dated April 22, 2019. Subsequently, the Petitioner sent an application to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, by email on May 26, 2020. The same was also turned down, and the petitioner was instructed to file his complaints via the Grievance Management System (henceforth referred to as “GMS”) in an email reply dated May 27, 2020. As a result, the Petitioner used the GMS platform to file his complaint. The Petitioner was notified of the Respondent Authorities’ ultimate judgment, which disallowed interest payment for the period of December 1, 2017, to December 28, 2018, citing the Petitioner’s account’s inactivity in accordance with EPF Scheme Paragraph 72(6). 

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the facts of this case draw attention to the provisions of Section 72(6) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, which denies the rightful and legitimate interest on the entire amount of Rs. 1,41,62,650 that was withdrawn from the EPF?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the Petitioner

• In support of the petitioner, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, ld. Counsel cites EPF Scheme, 1952, Paragraphs 72(1) and 72(6). He argues that the Commissioner is required by the Act to make timely payments in accordance with the EPF Scheme, 1952, based on Paragraph 72(1). 
• As a result, he contends that the Commissioner, not the account holder, is responsible for submitting any applications to receive the specified sum. He goes on to say that Paragraph 72(6) protects two groups of people. In this particular situation, the petitioner would fall into the second category—those who retire after turning 55. 
• He argues that because the Commissioner postponed paying interest until 2018, he must pay interest for the full time, not only the first 36 months, due to the requirement imposed by Paragraph 72(1). Therefore, it is urged that the Petitioner get interest on the sum of Rs. 1,41,62,650/-at an annual rate of 8.55%. Digitally signed by: DEVANSHU JOSHI Date of Signature: September 20, 2021, 17:25:23 during the specified time frame.

Argument on behalf of the Respondent

• The first preliminary argument argues that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction because Respondent No. 4, the Authority’s Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner office in Calcutta, maintained the account and the whole record is accessible there. He says this Court does not have geographical jurisdiction just because the money might have been credited to a Central Provident Fund office. Furthermore, he argues that the correspondence from the Delhi office, which the petitioner has relied upon, is an automatic message created by a system and does not grant any authority. 
• Second, he claims that although there are some inconsistencies in the Respondent’s counter-affidavit regarding the Petitioner’s date of birth and other data, the Petitioner’s most recent payment was made in November 2014. 
• The interest is only payable for the first 36 months and not for longer because the Petitioner did not bring any claims. He claims that the money was ultimately credited on December 28, 2018, after the initial claim was submitted on December 18, 2018, and resolved on December 21. As a result, the Provident Fund Commissioner credited the sum without delay. 
• Paragraphs 69(1) and 72(1) of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and Scheme, 1952 make plain the legislative objective of the aforementioned Scheme. Anybody having an EPF account may withdraw the entire amount credited to their account upon retirement from service after turning 55, according to Scheme Paragraph 69(1). 
• He further argues that the Commissioner is not subject to the Scheme’s Paragraph 72(1) requirement of rapid payment until and until the claim is lodged. The money would thereafter be moved to an Inoperative Account. No interest is due after the 36-month term when the money is transferred to an inoperative account.

JUDGMENT

According to the allegations made in this case, the petitioner frequently checked the online status of his account via the EPFO portal. Nevertheless, no notification or update indicated that the Petitioner’s account was no longer functional. According to the petitioner, the online passbook did not indicate that the EPF account was “Inoperative” until November 2018. As a result, the Petitioner was ignorant of the precise condition of his EPF account. It is unrealistic to expect every member with an EPF account to be familiar with every detail of the requirements as the Digitally From: DEVANSHU JOSHI Date of Signature: 20.09.2021 17:25:23 the same are periodically modified and are rather intricate. 

As a result, the EPFO had an obligation to update the portal on the day the account was declared inactive, allowing the petitioner to take the money out and use it in whatever he saw fit for investment. The Petitioner persisted in believing that interest would keep accruing on the amount in his EPF account. This may have prompted the petitioner to pursue the current case, together with the news release from March 29, 2016, which misled the public. Consequently, the Respondent Authorities are assessed expenses of one lakh rupees. The payment must be made within eight weeks.

CONCLUSION

Paragraph 60 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 outlines the process for calculating and crediting interest. According to paragraph 60(1), the Commissioner will credit each member’s account with interest at a rate that the Central Government will decide after consulting with the Central Board. See also In accordance with Paragraph 72(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, a member’s account will not be eligible for interest crediting as of the date it becomes inoperative, according to a notification dated January 15, 2011, which went into effect on April 1. The only exception to this rule is if a claim settlement takes more than thirty days to complete; in that instance, interest would be due in accordance with Paragraph 60(2). Therefore, interest would be due if an application for the settlement of a claim is not granted within 30 days. On the other hand, the 15 January 2011 modification effectively meant that members would not get interest after an account became inactive.

The EPF Scheme, 1952 outlines several procedures for provident fund payments in paragraph 72. Given that the EPF Act and Scheme 1952 are designed to benefit the members, Paragraph 72(1) requires the Commissioner to promptly pay in accordance with the Scheme as soon as a member’s balance becomes due. According to Paragraph 72(2), payments must be made promptly for the portion of the amount that is not subject to dispute or uncertainty, with the remaining balance being adjusted as soon as is reasonably reasonable, even if there is a dispute or doubt regarding any portion of the amount that has become payable. The goal is to guarantee that the funds designated for members and the fund’s benefit are disbursed immediately. Employers are subject to specific requirements under paragraph 72(5). For example, upon an employee’s departure from employment, the employer must ensure that the application for payment of provident fund is properly completed. The document must then be sent to the Commissioner for clearance within five days of receipt. Employers are nevertheless subject to this duty even in the event of a member’s passing. In the event that a member is unable to submit the application via an employer, he may submit it directly to the Commissioner, who will thereafter contact the relevant employer for the relevant information.

This case, hence, remarks on the EPF scheme and shows judicial activism in interpreting the statutes.