Syed Iftekhar Ahmed S/O Syed Vs. the Central Provident Fund - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. ma no. 22/2007: the ma is for condonation of delay in filing the oa.it is stated that there is a delay of 10 months and 25 days in filing the application. the reason stated is that the applicant had filed a contempt petition vide cp no. 53/2006 and that after the lapse of one year it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to resort to other remedies, if any available. even going by the said averment it is seen that the applicant waited for one year from the date of impugned order for filing the contempt petition. there is absolutely no explanation for such delay. though shri izhar ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay occurred in the above circumstances, it will be difficult for us to take the view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.2. however, we have gone through the impugned order and the averments in the oa. the applicant sought for implementation of a scheme evidenced by annexure a6. it is seen that the said scheme provides that a cash incentive of rs. 10000/- shall be provided to the 10% of dealing assistants who earn maximum points in the accounts group for settlement of claim with 30 days. it is also provided that the accounts group as a whole shall also be evaluated on certain parameters and the accounts group as a whole shall also be evaluated on the said parameters and the accounts group who earn maximum points shall entitle the supervisors upto the apfc level to the cash incentive. the applicant made representation dated 31-5-2003 for implementation of the said scheme as according to him he is entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. the applicant approached this tribunal by filing oa no. 167/2003 which was disposed of by order dated 1-9-2003 directing the applicant to make representation to the regional provident fund commissioner and a further direction was issued to the said authority to pass a reasoned order taking into account the circular dated 15-9-1999 referred in annexure a1. pursuant to the said direction the applicant made a representation dated 12-9-2003 (annexure a11). the request of the applicant in that representation was that the extra work load over and above the schemes of the employees provident fund organisation may kindly be taken back for redistribution as per the undertakings, in the said circular dated 15-9-1999. there is no request in the said representation for any incentive as such based on the alleged scheme.this is also repeated in the representation dated 6-1-2005 (annexure a12). in that also there is no request for grant of incentive under the scheme. the regional provident fund commissioner has issued an office memorandum dated 22-2-2005 (annexure a3) disposing of the representation as directed by this tribunal in its order dated 1-9-2003 in the oa no. 167/2003. it is stated therein that the representation and the relief sought for therein has become infructuous in view of the fact that the applicant has been relieved from the accounts task and not holding any work load relating to accounts presently. the applicant, as already noted, did not pursue this matter any further. in the representation dated 23-3-2005 submitted by the applicant also there is no averment to the effect that the applicant is still working in the accounts section. however, the applicant in para-9 of the oa has stated that he has been working in accounts section since 1993 to 2004 and is continuing as such. since the applicant has no such case in the representation dated 23-3-2005 submitted shortly after the impugned order such a contention cannot be countenanced. though the applicant has filed a contempt petition no. 53/2006 in oa no. 167/2003 it was subsequently withdrawn. thus going by the merits of the case also the application has no case since he is relieved from the accounts section and is rid of additional work. thus on merits also, according to us, there is no case for the applicant. in the circumstances, the delay condonation application is dismissed. consequently the oa is also dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Judgment:
1. MA No. 22/2007: The MA is for condonation of delay in filing the OA.It is stated that there is a delay of 10 months and 25 days in filing the application. The reason stated is that the applicant had filed a contempt petition vide CP No. 53/2006 and that after the lapse of one year it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to resort to other remedies, if any available. Even going by the said averment it is seen that the applicant waited for one year from the date of impugned order for filing the contempt petition. There is absolutely no explanation for such delay. Though Shri Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the delay occurred in the above circumstances, it will be difficult for us to take the view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.

2. However, we have gone through the impugned order and the averments in the OA. The applicant sought for implementation of a scheme evidenced by Annexure A6. It is seen that the said scheme provides that a cash incentive of Rs. 10000/- shall be provided to the 10% of dealing assistants who earn maximum points in the Accounts Group for settlement of claim with 30 days. It is also provided that the Accounts Group as a whole shall also be evaluated on certain parameters and the Accounts Group as a whole shall also be evaluated on the said parameters and the Accounts Group who earn maximum points shall entitle the supervisors upto the APFC level to the cash incentive. The applicant made representation dated 31-5-2003 for implementation of the said scheme as according to him he is entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. The applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 167/2003 which was disposed of by order dated 1-9-2003 directing the applicant to make representation to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and a further direction was issued to the said authority to pass a reasoned order taking into account the circular dated 15-9-1999 referred in Annexure A1. Pursuant to the said direction the applicant made a representation dated 12-9-2003 (Annexure A11). The request of the applicant in that representation was that the extra work load over and above the schemes of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation may kindly be taken back for redistribution as per the undertakings, in the said circular dated 15-9-1999. There is no request in the said representation for any incentive as such based on the alleged scheme.

This is also repeated in the representation dated 6-1-2005 (Annexure A12). In that also there is no request for grant of incentive under the scheme. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has issued an office memorandum dated 22-2-2005 (Annexure A3) disposing of the representation as directed by this Tribunal in its order dated 1-9-2003 in the OA No. 167/2003. It is stated therein that the representation and the relief sought for therein has become infructuous in view of the fact that the applicant has been relieved from the Accounts task and not holding any work load relating to accounts presently. The applicant, as already noted, did not pursue this matter any further. In the representation dated 23-3-2005 submitted by the applicant also there is no averment to the effect that the applicant is still working in the Accounts Section. However, the applicant in para-9 of the OA has stated that he has been working in Accounts Section since 1993 to 2004 and is continuing as such. Since the applicant has no such case in the representation dated 23-3-2005 submitted shortly after the impugned order such a contention cannot be countenanced. Though the applicant has filed a contempt petition No. 53/2006 in OA No. 167/2003 it was subsequently withdrawn. Thus going by the merits of the case also the application has no case since he is relieved from the Accounts Section and is rid of additional work. Thus on merits also, according to us, there is no case for the applicant. In the circumstances, the delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently the OA is also dismissed at the admission stage itself.