SUDHAMAY MAITI AND ORS. RATIKANTA PAL vs CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. — WPA/24535/2025

Case under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act ,1988 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0496142025

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

03rd November 2025

Filing Number

WPA/24553/2025

Filing Date

27-10-2025

Registration No

WPA/24535/2025

Registration Date

27-10-2025

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

MONEY CLAIM ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

10th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act ,1988 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

SUDHAMAY MAITI AND ORS. RATIKANTA PAL

Respondent(s)

CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

03-11-2025

NEW MOTION

12-03-2026

HEARING (GROUP-III)

02-03-2026

HEARING (GROUP-III)

05-02-2026

HEARING (GROUP-III)

22-12-2025

MOTION GR - III

Orders

10-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

Summary: The Calcutta High Court ordered the EPFO to refund excess pension contributions (made from November 1995 to March 2015) to 13 Airports Authority of India employees within 30 days, along with statutory interest. The court rejected the EPFO's argument that outstanding employer dues could be adjusted against employee entitlements, finding such action violated natural justice and constituted abuse of process, as the refundable amounts were employees' personal property funded from their wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Calcutta High Court ordered the EPFO to refund excess pension contributions (made from November 1995 to March 2015) to 13 Airports Authority of India employees within 30 days, along with statutory interest. The court rejected the EPFO's argument that outstanding employer dues could be adjusted against employee entitlements, finding such action violated natural justice and constituted abuse of process, as the refundable amounts were employees' personal property funded from their wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case