High Court Kerala High Court

T.Satheeshkumar vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 21 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.Satheeshkumar vs The Regional Provident Fund … on 21 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24426 of 2005(G)


1. T.SATHEESHKUMAR,MANAGER & SECRETARY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                       ...       Respondent

2. SRI.G.RAVINDRAN,ASST.COMMISSIONER,

3. SRI.VARGHESE K.DANIEL,

4. SRI.MUHAMMED KUNJU,ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,

5. SRI.ANANTHA RAMAN M.S.,ENFORCEMENT

6. SMT.B.PANKAJAKSHI AMMA,ENFORCEMENT

7. SRI.M.JOHN SAMUEL,ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,

8. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :21/07/2008

 O R D E R
                 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                       -------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No. 24426 of 2005
                   ---------------------------------
              Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed in 2005 challenging coercive steps

taken for recovery of provident fund arrears due from petitioner.

Recovery proceedings taken in the form of attachment of vehicle

and other properties of the school led to certain untoward incidents

in the school. This Court directed the Director General of Police to

conduct enquiry and file a report in this Court. Pursuant to the said

direction the Superintendent of Police has filed a report stating that

several crime cases were filed pursuant to complaints from the

school authorities. Much of the grievances of the petitioner are

redressed because of registration of crime against some of the

respondents. The balance prayer is only for installment facility for

clearing the arrears. I do not think there is any scope for this court

to consider installment facility for clearing the arrears of provident

fund, which was due in 2005. If petitioner does not make payment,

recovery can be made by following the procedure prescribed under

the Act and Rules. The writ petition is accordingly closed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg