ABHIJEET KUMAR vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDEND FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) on 1 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA Order Sheet Item no.: 13 M.A./231/2026 (PATNA) [ AMENDMENT ] In O.A./447/2023 COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT M.A./552/2026 Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 5 Order Dated: 01/10/2026 ABHIJEET KUMAR Vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDEND FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO)

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. H.R. Singh, ASC through VC mode, Mr. J.P. Verma Order of The Tribunal Counsels for both the parties are present. Counsel for the applicant has pressed this M.A. No. 231/2026 and submitted that during the pendency of the case, the opposite parties have rejected the name of the applicant for compassionate appointment; hence, as a subsequent incident, he is going to mention the relief with regard to that rejection order. Counsel for the opposite party has filed the reply, but he has not disputed that the above rejection order dated 29.09.2026 has been passed by the authorities during the pendency of the present O.A. Heard and considered. By incorporating the proposed amendment the nature of O.A. will not be changed. In view of the above, M.A. No. 231/2026 is allowed.

Let the amendment be incorporated within a week. Counsel for the opposite parties is granted an opportunity to file an additional written statement with respect to the amended relief. Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that he has filed M.A. No. 552/2026 for directing to delete the names of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. In reply, counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party No. 1 is Union of India and the rest of the opposite parties have conferred the power under the sovereignty of the Union of India. Therefore, although they may be formal parties, they should not be deleted from the array of opposite parties. So far as opposite party No. 2 is concerned, counsel for the applicant has submitted the copy of the Code of Social Security, 2020. Section 14(1) of the above Code says that:- “14. (1) The Central Government may appoint a Central Provident Fund Commissioner who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Board and shall also function as head of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.” Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2, although he is the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, yet he has been designated authority to perform the function of Chief Executive Officer of the Board also; therefore, he is a necessary party. He further submitted that he may be permitted to mention the designation of opposite party No. 2 as Provident Fund Commissioner also. In view of the above, counsel for the applicant is directed to correct the designation of opposite party No. 2 as argued by him. The amendment as mentioned/ sought in M.A. No. 231/2026 will also be incorporated within a week. Let the amended copy of O.A. be submitted on record before the next date of listing. Accordingly, M.A. No. 231/2026 as well as M.A. No. 552/2026 is disposed of.

List the case for final hearing on 19.11.2026. Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Durgesh Uttam ( court master )