SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL),J. - (1.)The present writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents to make payment from the "Reserve and Surplus" fund to the Petitioners with accrued interest in a time bound manner by quashing the letter of refusal dtd. 8/3/2018 of the RPFC-I, Durgapur.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a letter dtd. 8/3/2018 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I. It appears from the said letter that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I (exemption) had been informed as follows:-
"Kindly refer to the subject and reference cited above. In this connection, it is informed that consequent upon cancellation of exemption granted to the establishment U/S (17) (1) (a) of the EPF and MP Act 1952 as on 17/10/2011, the establishment had submitted two separate audited Balance Sheets in respect of the Trust Fund namely Hindustan Cables Employees Provident Fund for Workers and Hindustan Cables Officers Provident Fund for Officers.

It is also observed from the Balance Sheet of Trust Fund as on 17/10/2011 that a Sum of Rs.15,26,66,061.00 (Fifteen Crore Twenty Six Lakh Sixty Six Thousand and Sixty One only) shows Reserve and Surplus Fund in respect of Hindustan Cables Employees Provident Fund (workers) and Rs.12,83,73,634.00 (Twelve Crore Eighty Three Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Six hundred and Thirty Four only) also shows Reserve and Surplus Fund in Hindustan Cables Officers Provident Fund (Officers). The Board of trustees of both the Fund has not distributed the Reserve and Surplus Fund among the member on prorata basis as on the date of cancellation of exemption and accordingly the above mentioned Reserve and Surplus Fund had been deposited in statutory Fund.

Hence, the question of disbursement of Reserve and Surplus Fund does not arise at this stage as this is not part of contribution.

This is for kind information.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- Regional P.F. Commissioner I"

(3.)The Respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481, decided on July 9, 2008, wherein the Court held:-
"38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts".

52. In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state the facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the writ court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief. But we have also considered the merits of the case and even on merits, we are convinced that no case has been made out by him to interfere with the action of SAIL, or the order passed by the High Court."