M.P.THIRUNAUKKARASU TENNYSON SAMUEL PUSHPARAJ, ,Arunbala B vs THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER — WP/19566/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010886762026

Filing Number

WP/65603/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19566/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Provident Fund ( 127 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M.P.THIRUNAUKKARASU TENNYSON SAMUEL PUSHPARAJ, ,Arunbala B

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

  2. 2.The Central Provident Fund commissioner

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K. SurenderView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 19566/2026 The Madras High Court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the petitioner's request for refund of Rs. 34,77,656/- deposited toward enhanced pension contribution within three weeks. The petitioner had withdrawn his enhanced pension option six days after deposit (via email on 04.06.2025) but the EPFO failed to process the refund despite multiple representations, prompting this writ petition for mandamus. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19566/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 19566/2026 The Madras High Court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the petitioner's request for refund of Rs. 34,77,656/- deposited toward enhanced pension contribution within three weeks. The petitioner had withdrawn his enhanced pension option six days after deposit (via email on 04.06.2025) but the EPFO failed to process the refund despite multiple representations, prompting this writ petition for mandamus. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case