KIRITKUMAR SOMALAL JANI Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
KIRITKUMAR SOMALAL JANI
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner who wants to purchase a flat has made a grievance regarding the inaction on the part of respondent No. 1 in granting advance to the petitioner from the balance of his Provident Fund Account for the said purpose. Respondent No. 2 is the employer under whom the petitioner serves. Respondent No. 1-Commissioner refused to sanction that withdrawal on 31-5-1988. The reason for refusal is that as per Para 68-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 second advance is not permitted for that purpose.
(2.)In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner a few relevant introductory facts are required to be noted at the outset. The petitioner is a member of provident fund since 1966. He has completed more than 28 years as member of the said fund while serving in Silver Cotton Mill and since 1974 he is serving under respondent No. 2. The petitioner required Rs. 80 0 to be withdrawn from his Provident Fund Account as he wanted to purchase a house. According to him he was actually entitled to withdraw major part of the amount but he was not sanctioned the same by respondent No. 1 on the ground that he had earlier withdrawn Rs. 5 100 for repairs of the house in 1977. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs. 5 100 as above from his Provident Fund Account in October 1977. That was a withdrawal for effecting substantial alterations and mortification in his flat. It is his case that the said withdrawal was not by way of advance for purchaseing a flat or new house. That it was merely for repairs of the existing house. But when he decided to purchase a new flat he applied for advance as per the relevant provisions of the Scheme. The petitioners case is that as in the past he had never taken advance and never asked for withdrawal from his Provident Fund Account any amount for purchasing new flat or house as per the present demand is for the first time for such purpose and it could not have been rejected by respondent No. 1 on the wrong assumption that it would not to withdrawal for the second time for the same purpose.
(3.)In response to the rule issued in the petition respondent No. 1 has filed the affidavit of one Mr. H. R. Shah Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. In para 4 of the affidavit it has been submitted that the petitioner applied for advance under Para 68-B of the Act for addition/substantial alteration or substantial improvement necessary to the dwelling house owned by him on 15-9-1977. That the said application was entertained and he was given an amount of Rs. 5 100 in November 1977. The petitioner again applied for purchase of a fiat on 1-4-1985. The said application was rejected on the ground that he had already been granted an advance under Para 68-B of the Scheme. In para 5 of the affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner applied afresh in February 1988 for an advance under Para 68-B of the said Scheme while scrutinising the application it came to the notice that the petitioner had already taken an advance as stated above. Accordingly the petitioners application was rejected by virtue of the provisions of sub-para (6) of the Scheme.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.