Telangana High Court
WP/12907/2025 of Chandrahas Vithal Shetty Vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner on 8 December 2025
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IUONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 12907 OF 2025 Between: AND 1 Chandrahas Vithal Shetty, S/o. tvlr. Vithal
[ 33001
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
IUONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 12907 OF 2025
Between:
AND
Chandrahas Vithal Shetty, S/o. tvlr. Vithal Shetty, Aged about 50 yeaIs, Otcupation- Business, R/o. 203, 1/A'Neighbourhood, Lokhandwala Complex, NR. Alica Nagar, Kandivli (East), Mumbai 400101 .
...PETITIONER
The Regional P.F. Commissioner, Hyderabad, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, No.
3-4-7 63, Barkatpura Chama n, Hyderabad- 500027 .
Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Karvy [/illennium, Plot No 31/P, Nanakramguda Financial District, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Rangareddi, TG-500032.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, directlon, or more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing impugned Order with a Grievance id no. APHYD/E12024144237 dt- 3111212024 passed on 07tO1t2O25 and impugned Order with a Grievance lD APHYD/E/2025I09073 dt.
!6t0312025 passed on 2510312025, rejecting the Petitioners claim for transfer of his Provident Fund dues to his new employer as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and Article 14 and Article 3004 of the constitution of lndia, 1950
and consequentially direct the transfer of his PF Account, in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petiiion under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to suspend the impugned Order with a Grievance id no. I PHYDlEl2024l44237
d1.071O112025 passed on 3111212024 and impugned Orde' with a Grievance lD
APHYDlEl2025l09073 dt. OOlO3l2025 passed on 251 t312025 issued by Respondent No. 1.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. MANINI BHARATI, REPREI} :NTING
SRI BOKARAO LOKESHWAR RE I 'DY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. SURENDER REtrl rY, S.C. FOR EPFO
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT ITYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRTT PETITION No.L29O7 of 2025
oa.L2.202s
Between:
Chandrahas Vithal ShettY
...Petitioner
AND
The Regional P.F'.Commissioner' Hyderabad'
BhavishYanidhi Rhawan, No'3-4 763'
Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad and another ,..Responderrts
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 O7 O1'2O25 and 25.03.2025 passecl by Respondent No 1 rejecting his PF transfer claims uuder Form- 13' IJe 'seeks a direction to transfer his PF accumulations from his previous employer, Kar'y Stock Broking Limited, to his Present emPloYer'
2. Heard Ms.Manini Bharati, learned counsel representing Mr.Bokarao Lokeshrvar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner a11d Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO' oerused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitionel General Manager of,respondent No.2-Company, \,r under the Employees' Provident Fund and Misceila Act, 1952 (for shor' "the Act ). It is further stater there from 26.12.2016 to 27.O8.2O21 and relieve< It is further stated that his pF contributions wer-r month but ',r,ere not deposited by the emplor.r amounts were deducted from his salary, the e n failed to deposit both its own and the employe: After resigning and moving for new employmen sought to transfer his pF account and hled arL Claim Form (Form 13) on 31.12.2024 and the rejected on 07 .O1.2025. Further, the petitione grievance on 06 .03.2O2S and the sarne was rejecte < Aggrieved by the sa*r.e, he file..I the present writ pet ras appointed as Lich is registered reous Provisions that he worked on 15. 1L2O2I. deducted every
r. Although PF ployer allegedly s contributions. , the petitioner online Transfer said claim was : frled alother on 25.O3.2025. tion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further s rbmits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely cov:.ed by the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.p.Nr 32O5g of 2023, wherein it was held that an employee cannot be ct, nied transfer of PF accumulation n:erely because the previous enr ;loyer defaulted 7/
in remitting contributions. It is submitted that a similar order may be passed even in this case.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, for respondent No.1 placed on record instructions dated 05.12-2025 issued by the Assistant P.F.Commissioner(Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization, wherein it is stated that Form 13 was transferred to GN/GGN/30437 170256 for an amount of Rs'7,91,433/- on 28 .l | .2025 and informed to the petitioner through Maii on 03.12.2025.
6. Considering the submissions made and in view of the instructions placed on record by the learned Standing counsel for trPFO stating that the petitioner's Form- 13 has already been processed and the Provident Fund amount of Rs'7,91,433/- has been transferred to GN/GGN/30437 170256 on 28)'12025, ar:d the same has been duly communicated to the petitioner on 03.12.2025, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. 7 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed bf, recording the fact that the Provident Fund transfer has been completed' However, it is I I
open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with 1aw if any further grievance persists. No order as 1( costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in _his writ petition shall stand ciosed , '^ SD/-A.H I . GOWRI SHANKAR ASJi Sf,ANT REGISTRAR , r\..\ \ \ ..:=--.'- '- t\ fA$rtoru oFFlcER l //TRUE COPY// To MP
1. The Regional P.F. Commissioner, Hydela!-a-d., ^B-havislt f,anidhi Bhawan' No 3-4-763, Barkatpura Chaman, Hyderabad- 500027.
2. One CC to SRI BOKARO LOKESHWAR REDDY, Advcr ate IOPUC]
3. One CC to SRI S. SURENDER REDDY, S.C. for EPFC' OPUCI
4. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT DA'l- :D:0811212025 .f.' '\\.'. '. 1'.1 ' l :1 ,, .::-. \ -:. 1 -') I tic
?
,
ORDER
WP.Ncr 12907 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE V\ RIT PETITION b % w WI] HOUT COSTS iI