BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. SANTANU CHATTERJEE vs REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II AND ANR. — WPA/7599/2026
Case under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act ,1988 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 08th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0147732026
Next Hearing
31st March 2026
Filing Number
WPA/7533/2026
Filing Date
25-03-2026
Registration No
WPA/7599/2026
Registration Date
25-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 16 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. SANTANU CHATTERJEE
Respondent(s)
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II AND ANR.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
NEW MOTION
HEARING (GROUP-III)
GR. - III (MOTION)
NEW MOTION (GROUP - III)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 08-05-2026 | HEARING (GROUP-III) |
| 24-04-2026 | GR. - III (MOTION) |
| 09-04-2026 | NEW MOTION (GROUP - III) |
Orders
Case Summary: WPA 7599/2026 The court disposed of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's writ petition challenging EPF proceedings initiated under Sections 14B and 7Q. While rejecting the petitioner's argument that it was wrongly impleaded and shouldn't be classified as principal employer, the court held such issues must be decided by the EPF authority during proceedings, not at the writ stage. The court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to provide the petitioner full opportunity to present its case and decide the matter expeditiously according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WPA 7599/2026 The court disposed of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's writ petition challenging EPF proceedings initiated under Sections 14B and 7Q. While rejecting the petitioner's argument that it was wrongly impleaded and shouldn't be classified as principal employer, the court held such issues must be decided by the EPF authority during proceedings, not at the writ stage. The court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to provide the petitioner full opportunity to present its case and decide the matter expeditiously according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts