Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/6388/2016 of SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR on 21 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011776672016 + W.P.(C) 6388/2016 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Divya Swamy, Ms. Yagyawalkya Singh, Mr. Anubhav Agrawal, Mr. Rishav Ranjan, Ms. Akriti Singh and Mr. Pranav Singh, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
$~32
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC011776672016
+
W.P.(C) 6388/2016
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through:
Dr. Divya Swamy, Ms. Yagyawalkya
Singh, Mr. Anubhav Agrawal, Mr.
Rishav Ranjan, Ms. Akriti Singh and
Mr. Pranav Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SC EPFO along
with Mr. Yash Narain and Mr. Nimit
Kumar, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
21.09.2026
1. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the notification dated 08.01.2011, the proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the EPF Act’) and the consequent assessment order dated 01.04.2016.
2. The brief facts are that at the relevant time, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short ‘MCD’) was trifurcated into three parts (South, North and East). The grievance of the petitioner/South Delhi Municipal Corporation (for brevity ‘SCMC’) is that the notification extending the applicability of the EPF Act to municipal corporations is bad and contrary to exemption contained in Section 16(1)(c) of the EPF Act as the SDMC falls within the excluded category.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since 2015 the statutory obligations under the EPF Act are being complied with viz-a-viz the daily wage employees. The limited grievance at this stage is that in the proceedings under Section 7(A) of the EPF Act and while passing the assessment order, the respondent no.2 has not considered the effect of Section 16 of the EPF Act. The liability was calculated qua all the employees including employees falling within the exclusion under Section 16 of the EPF Act and notwithstanding that the employees were covered under the pension scheme.
4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that till date final assessment has not been made. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that during the pendency of the petition, the MCD which was trifurcated in 2012 was subsequently unified in 2022 and from 2012 till date all municipal corporations except SDMC are complying with the requirements of EPF Act.
5. At this stage, without the factual aspects having been determined by the competent authority, adjudication of the challenge to the validity of the notification would be premature and without a solid factual foundation.
6. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to proceed with the assessment proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file a detailed reply thereto within eight weeks, whereafter the respondent no.2 after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass the final order.
7. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law if aggrieved of the final order.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
SHAIL JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 ‘ha’