Telangana High Court
WP/28361/2025 of Renuka D Mello Vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner on 9 December 2025
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 28361 OF 2025 Between: Renuka D' Ir/ello, D/o. Lilian, aged about: 40
[ 33001
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 28361 OF 2025
Between:
Renuka D' Ir/ello, D/o. Lilian, aged about: 40 years, Occupation: Employed, Rl/o.2, Francis Haven, Portuguese Church, Dadar West, [\/umbai 400028
...PETITIONER
AND
The Regional P.F. Commissioner, Hyderabad, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.
3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad - 500027
Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Karvy IVillennium, Plot No.3'1/P, Nanakramguda Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Rangareddi, TG - 500032.
.,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction, or more particularly in the nature of a Writ of lVlandamus or dqclaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in rejecting the Petitioner's PF transfer claims under Form-13 in issuing the lmpugned Orders dt- 23.1 .O.2023 and d1.02.02.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Employees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the transfer of his PF Account, in the interest of justice.
a
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section '1 5'l CPC praying that in the circt mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ray be pleased to suspend the lmpugned Orders dt. 23.10.2023 and dt.02 (2.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. LOKESHWAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. SURENDER REDD\ , S.C. FOR EPFO
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
i
I
I
I
i
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.28361 of2025
Between:
Renuka D Mello
...Petitioner
AND
The Regional P F Commissioner & anbther
...Respondents
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner challenges the orders dated 23.1O.2O23 and
02. O2.2024 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting her provident Fund (PF) tra,sfer claims under Form-13. She seeks a direction to transfer her PF accumulations from her previous employer i.e. respondent No.2- Kany Stock Broking Limited, to her present employer i.e. IIFL Securities Limited.
2. Heard Sri B. Lokeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned Standing counsel lor trPF O, lor re spon d en t No. l . Dated: O9.12.2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tLi was employed w'ith respondent No.2 - Karly Sto': and PF contribution. \ /ere regularly deducted frorr 2O2O. He submits that respondent No.2 failed employer and employee contributions from October although the deductions continued. He submits th filed two Form- 13 online transfer claims before I t which vvere rejected on the grounds that contritr' remitted. father's name differed, and claim alrr: submits that the employee cannot be penalized ltr default arrd that PF authorities are duty-bound to PF accounts under paragraph 57 of the Emp.r Funds (EPF) Scheme, 1952. He further submits I squarely covered by the judgment of this Court irL of 2023, dated 22.08.2024 wherein it was held t cannot be denied merely because the employer ha full contributions, and that PF authorities must account while continuing recovery proceedir 1 empioyer. t the petitioner r Broking Ltd., her salary until o deposit both 2019 onwards, rt the petitioner spondent No.1, rtions were not Ldy settled. He the employer's ,ffect trarisfer of yees'Provident hat this case is W.P. No. 32058 hat PF transfer ; failed to remit till transfer the s against the
4. Learned Stalding Counsel for EPFO, for t re respondents, submits that though the petitioner worked with espondent No.2 until 24.08.2020, PF contributions were rece , ed only up to October, 201,9. He submits that as full contributions for the entire period of service have not been received, the PF account shows an incomplete ledger, and therefore the petitioner's Form- 13 claims were rejected. He submits that under the trPF Scheme, there is no provision permitting "partial PF transfer", and unless complete monthly contributions are received and reconciled through ECR (Electronic Challan-cum-Return), transfer cannot be effected. He submits that action under Section 7A has bcen initiated against respondent No.2 for recovery of dues and that the employer has been directed to file ECR and remit pending contributions. He further submits that once respondent No.2 deposits the remaining contributions, the same will be credited into the petitioner's accoun t.
5. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was employed with respondent No.2 from 2OO9 to 2O2O. Th,e petitioner's PF contributions were deducted every month but were not deposited by the employer after October, 2019. On this ground, respondent No. 1 rejected both the petitioner's Form-13 claims. The issue raised in this writ petition is identical to that decided by this Court in W.P. No. 32058 of 2023, wherein this Court heid that the PF authorities must transfer the PF account of al employee I X notwithstarding defaults committed by the emf) ryer and that the employee cannot be made to suffer for lapses of 1l e establishment. In view of the said judgment and applying the I ame reasoning to the present case, this Court finds that the petili )ner is entitled to have her PF account transferred to her prese 1t employer,s pF account, irrespective ol the previous employer's ton-remittalce of ful1 contributions.
6. Accordingly, the impugned orders datec 02.02.2024 passed 'ty resporrdent No. 1 are set : No.1 is directed to transfer the petitioner,s pF a,: PF Account No. APHYDO029903000OOlLt92l account No.KDMALO0446990000O2TS94, il transferred, strictly in accordance with law. It is proceedings initiated or to be initiated against re.r recovery of outstanding PF dues may continue inr a-lso made clear that if any further amounts wt: the petitioner's salarSz towards pF contribution e from respondent No .2-firm, the same shall b t credited to the petitioner's new pF account, if not The entire exercise shall be completed within a weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orrl 23.10.2023 and side. Respondent :umulations from , her present PF not already made clear that pondent No.2 for ependently. It is e deducted from lter her relieving calculated ald already credited. reriod of two (2) :r. /
7 . With the above directions, the V/rit Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHAN KAR AS STANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To S anidhi Bhawan, No
The Reqional P.F. Commissioner, Hyderabad'^Bha il";65:B;rkripura chaman. Hvderabad - 5o0o27
2. One CC to SRI B. LOKESHWAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI S. SURENDER REDDY' S C' for EPFO [OPUC]
4. Two CD CoPies MP
HIGH COURT DATI tD:0911212025 _.-a' J' t'i 3 1 L:C iif .., ii WP.No.28361 of 2025 .- i)/jr \., ,
ORDER
DISPOSING OF THE \IJ RIT PETITION WIT -IOUT COSTS I 9 \4"