1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WPA 3663 of 2020 Hindustan Cable’s Ex Officers’ Association & Anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. For the Petitioners :Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Pramitava Nath, Adv. For the P.F. Authorities : Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent no. 4 (HCL ) : Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Ranit Ray, Adv. For the Union of India : Mr. Partha Sarathi Ghosh, Adv. Judgment reserved on : 16.07.2026 Judgment delivered on : 21.08.2026 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:- 1. The writ petitioner has been preferred challenging an order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolkata, respondent no.3 and order dated 27.06.2019 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent no.1. 2. Vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2019 the respondent no.3 herein observed as follows:- 2 “During the discussion representatives from Hindustan Cable's Ex-Officers' Association were explained para 28(2) of the EPF Scheme 1952 that the amount lying with Reserve and Surplus fund cannot be distributed. It is stated under para 28(2) of the EPF Scheme 1952 that: All accumulations standing to the credit of the subscribers, howsoever invested, shall be transferred to the fund by the authority aforesaid in cash; Provided that where the whole or any part of such accumulations consists of investments in Government securities or in securities guaranteed by appropriate Government as regards repayment of principal and payment of interest or in both the authority making the transfer to the fund shall transfer those securities at the price for which they were actually purchased or transfer a sum equivalent to such price. In case, however, the whole or any part of such accumulations is invested in National Savings Certificates or National Plan Saving Certificates, the appreciated value of such certificates at the time of the transfer will be taken into account in determining the amount of the accumulations to be transferred, provided that the difference between the face value of such certificates and their appreciated value at the time of the transfer has already been credited to the accounts of the subscribers; Provided further that where the whole or any part of such accumulations consists of investments in securities hearing no guarantee of an appropriate Governments as regards repayment of principal and payment of interest, the Central Government may, in exceptional cases, allow acceptance of the transfer of such securities from the authority making the transfer to the Fund at the price for which they were actually purchased. 3 Explanation - The total amount of provident fund accumulations includes interest thereon and the authority in charge of the Fund shall transfer in cash any balance of interest on investments which happens to be undistributed on the date of transfer, or realized or realizable for the period prior to the registration of the securities in the name of the Central Board of Trustees. Employees Provident Fund." Kindly recall that during the meeting that was held on 07.05.2019 OIC, RO-Durgapur has explained it that since Past Accumulation dues has been taken over by EPFO w.e.f. 17.10.2011 (date of cancellation of exemption) and transferred to Central Board of Trustees, this has now become a part of the entire EPF corpus and belongs to all members of the fund, not only just to the employees of the establishment. Therefore, this surplus cannot be distributed to the employees of the establishment. The action of BOT at Hyderabad is improper for which show-cause notice has been issued to them by RO- Hyderabad.” 3. Vide the impugned order dated 27.06.2019 the authority herein also observed as follows:- “In this connection, it is informed that a sum amount has been found as Reserve and Surplus Fund in the Balance Sheet. In this regard the procedure for transfer of accumulation for existing Provident Fund has been illustrated in explanation of Para 28 (2) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, which is reproduced below. "Explanation. The total amount of provident fund accumulations includes interest thereon and the authority in charge of the Fund shall transfer in cash any balance of interest on investments which happens to be undistributed on 4 the date of the transfer, or realized or realizable for the period prior to the registration of the securities in the name of the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund." From the above, it is clear that there is no provision for distribution of Reserve and Surplus Fund after transfer of Fund to CBT, EPFO.” 4. The petitioner case in short is that Hindustan Cable's Ex-Officers' Association is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 and has been formed for the purpose of looking after the welfare of the separated officers of Hindustan Cable Limited. The members of the Association are all superannuated/voluntarily retired/resigned officers of Hindustan Cables Limited. The Secretary of the Society is also an ex-employee of Hindustan Cable Limited and is a citizen of India. 5. The respondent company being an exempted establishment had its own set of provident fund rules which was not less beneficial than the Act of 1952. During the period the employment officers contributed to the said fund and the Board of Trustees had invested deposit in the pattern provided in the Provident Fund Rules; in securities, bonds, etc. with the expectation of earning greater interest and churning more generation for the benefit of the members/beneficiaries. Irrespective of the salary drawn, all officers of the Rupnarayanpur Unit and corporate office were members of the Trust Fund. 6. On 17.10.2011, the exemption granted to the establishment of Hindustan Cable Limited was cancelled by the Central Government by an 5 order. The petitioners state that 17.10.2011 being the cutoff date on which the exemption was cancelled, the audited accounts of the Trust Fund maintained for the officers reveal the surplus figure of Rs.12,83,73,634/-. 7. With the cancellation of exemption, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur had been the custodian of all bonds, securities and investments in relation to the members of the erstwhile Trust Fund. The said investments include undistributed surplus funds of all members over and above the contributions of the erstwhile existing members. 8. The petitioners state that as and when officers had separated from the service of the respondent company, either by superannuation, death or voluntary retirement, the provident fund dues standing to the credit of the respective officers had been duly settled by the Board of Trustees, prior to the fund having been transferred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's office. It is further stated that after 17.10.2011, whosoever had become eligible for withdrawal or settlement of his provident fund dues, the same had been settled by the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur. 9. The petitioners state that in spite of settlement of the entire provident fund dues of the officers of the respondent company, there still lies a huge balance or surplus in the Fund. As on 17.10.2011, the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,83,73,634/-was standing to the credit of the Trust 6 Fund. The said amount has been transferred to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur. 10. It is further submitted that after all the officers had separated their employment relationship with the respondent company and their provident fund dues had been settled, save and except distribution of Surplus Fund, Hindustan Cable's Ex-Officers' Association, had been making representations to the respondent Provident Fund Authorities for disbursement of the surplus fund to the beneficiaries/members who were existing as on and prior to 17.10.2011. 11. It is also submitted that in respect of the Hyderabad Unit of the same company, wherein similar situation arose, the surplus fund had already been distributed amongst the existing members of the exempted Trust Fund. 12. The petitioner no.2 in the present case has filed an affidavit as directed by the Court and stated therein as follows:- “That the Board of Trustees had invested deposit in the pattern provided in the Provident Fund Rules; in Govt. securities, bonds, etc. which generated higher rate of interest rather than the statutory minimum rate of interest for the benefit of the members/beneficiaries. Irrespective of the salary drawn, all officers of the Rupnarayanpur Unit and corporate office were members of the Trust Fund. That as on 17.10.2011 an excess/surplus amount of Rs.12,83,73,634/- was standing to the credit of the Trust 7 Fund as per audited Balance Sheet and the said amount has been transferred to the office of the respondent no.1. This shall appear from the inter departmental communication of the respondent authorities dated 06.03.2018, a copy whereof is annexed at page 94 of the writ petition. That in respect of the Hyderabad Unit of the same company, wherein similar situation arose, the surplus fund had already been distributed amongst the existing members of the exempted Trust Fund.” 13. The respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 in their report filed in the form of an affidavit have stated therein that the Petitioner No. 2 has mentioned his legal entity in the instant writ petition. Further, it is submitted that name of members of the Association, who superannuated/voluntary retired/resigned officers of the Hindustan Cables Ltd. have also not been mentioned in the instant writ petition. As such it is submitted that the instant writ petition is a frivolous application and it is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 14. It is further stated in the said report that the establishment was not granted an exemption but was granted relaxation and the same was withdrawn. It appears from the communication dated 14th March, 2019 that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I (Exemption) had written to the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Heavy Industry and public Enterprises and that the said letter was in respect of cancellation of 8 exemption in respect of M/s. Hindustan Cables Limited. As such the argument as to withdrawal of the exemption/relaxation, it appears to be settled in view of the said letter. It is further stated in their report that claims of all members have already been settled on the basis of past provident fund accumulation as submitted by the establishment in accordance with the provision para 28 of the EPC Scheme, 1952. 15. It is further stated that the writ petitioners were not at all entitled to ventilate the grievance of the officers of the Respondent Company who were employed and served uninterruptly in Rupnarayanpur Unit and Corporate Office of the Respondent Company, who are concerned with the disbursement of the surplus amount which had been transferred and/or removed from the erstwhile Provident Fund Trust for officers of the company, to the hands of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur. It is submitted that since, entire past accumulations of the employees/officers concerned has already been settled in accordance with law, thus question of distribution of any surplus fund to the members/employee of the Respondent Company (Hindustan Cable Ltd.) does not arise at all. 16. It is further stated that the said Past Accumulation amount has now become a part of the entire EPF corpus and belongs to the members of the fund, not only just to the employees of the establishment. Therefore, surplus cannot be distributed to the employees of the establishment. The action of Board of Trustees at Hyderabad is improper for which show-cause notice has already been issued to them 9 by the Regional Office, EPFO, Hyderabad. Thus, it is submitted that the instant writ application is devoid of merit and not at all maintainable either in law or in fact and it is liable to be dismissed with costs. 17. Report in the form of affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the establishment Hindustan Cable Ltd. being the respondent no.4 herein, wherein the establishment have stated as follows:- “that by order dated October 17, 2011, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Durgarpur, respondent no. 1 herein communicated to the then Unit Head of the respondent no. 4 establishment, the decision of withdrawal of exemption. The respondent no. 4 establishment was directed to comply as an un-exempted establishment and transfer the fund along with past accumulation statement within such time and such manner as per provisions of the Act and Scheme. that that as on the date of cancellation of exemption [October 17, 2011 the accumulated fund of the trust of Hindustan Cables Officers Provident Fund Trust after settlement in favour of the officers and members of the Officers Provident Fund accumulated to Rs. 12,83,73,634/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Eighty-Three Lacs, Seventy-Three Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty-Four) only. As a result, along with the past accumulation statement, the entire trust fund which was shown as 'Reserves and Surplus' in the audited Balance Sheet for the period 2011-2012 was transferred in favour of the Central Board of Trustees. that the Regional Office, Durgapur had further assessed and recovered all the leviable dues, damages, interest etc. in this regard. The Trust was closed and there 10 are no issues pending with the Trust with respect to the petitioners herein.” 18. Admittedly, on the relaxation/exemption being withdrawn by the letter dated 14/17.10.2011, the establishment, the respondent no.4 was directed to comply as an unexempted establishment and transfer the fund along with past accumulation statement, as per the Act and Scheme. 19. From the impugned orders, it is clear that the total past accumulation along with statement, and fund was transferred to the respondent authority, which is admitted in the impugned order. From the copies of balance sheet annexed it appears that the past accumulation statement along with transfer of fund clearly notes that the “fund which stood transferred under the head Reserve and Surplus” and the amount also was specifically quantified, in respect of each employees. 20. The said documents are part of the auditors report being balance sheet. (Scanned copy of the report is reproduced herein after Para 21). In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent authority it appears that similar averments have been made in their report in the form of an affidavit. 21. Reply thereto also relates to claim of the petitioner as made in the writ application. 11 12 22. In course of hearing both parties have submitted their written notes of argument along with judgments relied upon. 23. Mr. Majumder learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that HCL was an exempted establishment under section 17(1)(a) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and had its own PF Trust. During the employment many officers made excess/additional contribution towards the PF Trust. On 17.10.2011, the exemption granted to HCL was cancelled by the 13 Central Government. The audited Balance sheet of the PF trust had a surplus figure of Rs. 12,83,73,634/- as on 17.10.201. With the cancellation of the exemption, the respondent RPFC, Durgapur had been the custodian of all bonds, securities and investment in relation to the members of the erstwhile PF Trust, including the undistributed surplus amount of Rs. 12,83,73,634/-. The said surplus amount represents the excess contribution made by the ex-officers of HCL towards the PF Trust. The petitioner no.1 made several representations before the Respondent No.1 for disbursement of the surplus fund to the beneficiaries/members who were existing as on and prior to 17.10.2011. The prayer for disbursement of the surplus has been turned down by letters dated 29.05.2019 and 27.06.2019. Similar prayer for disbursement raised by the Hyderabad Unit employees of HCL has been allowed and amounts have been disbursed. 24. Mr. Majumder, further argues that the amount of surplus and reserve, which the respondent PF authorities have taken over is the accumulation of excess contributions made by the ex-officers and employees towards the PF Trust of HCL, prior to the cancellation of the exemption. The Trust Rules, particularly Rule 44 provides for the provision for distribution of the fund amongst its members. The PF authorities cannot treat the employees of the Hyderabad Unit and Rupnarayan Unit differently. They have allowed distribution of surplus and reserve to the officers and employees of the Hyderabad Unit of HCL. The respondents have therefore erred in rejecting the distribution of 14 reserves. The trust Rules have been wrongly applied. The Rules have been approved by the Provident Fund themselves, therefore, with the winding up of the Trust, the Reserves should be distributed amongst the members and not to the public at large. 25. In view of the rejection of the prayer of the petitioners by the respondent authority relying upon para 28 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 the petitioners argues that the provision of Paragraph 28 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 deals with situations only falling under Section 15(2) and Section 17(5) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. The case at hand is not covered under either under Section 15(2) or under 17(5) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. Therefore, the provision of Paragraph 28 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 is not applicable in the present case. 26. The petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar B & Ors. reported at (2023) 12 SCC 701. A supplementary written notes has been filed by the writ petitioner, wherein it is stated that under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the schemes framed thereunder, the contributions remitted by the employer and the employee are credited to the specific accounts of the employees and not to the larger pool of the EPFO. Para 49, 50 and 51 of the said Scheme provides for the different types of accounts to be maintained by the respondent authorities, namely, Administrative Accounts, Provident Fund Accounts and Interest Account respectively. Para 52 of the said 15 Scheme provides for the Investment of moneys belonging to Employees' Provident Fund. Para 53 of the said Scheme provides for the Disposal of the Fund. It is specifically mentioned that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, the Fund, not including the therein Administrative Account, shall not, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, be expended for any purpose other than the payment of sums standing to the credit of individual members of the Fund. Therefore the amount lying as reserve fund is liable to be expended only towards the member employees. Para 72 of the said Scheme provides for Payment of Provident Fund. Para 72(6) provides for when the respondent authority may retain the accumulation. It is specifies under Para 72(6) that any amount becoming due to a member, whose claim has been settled but which could not be remitted for the want of latest address or where no application for withdrawal has been filed or an amount is remitted to a person is received back as undelivered and is not claimed again within 36 months, then such amounts may be transferred to an Inoperative Account. 27. The provident fund authorities being the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein on filing their written notes have reiterated the case made out in their opposition. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this court passed in WPA 27817 of 2023 (Dilip Kumar Chowdhury & Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur, EPFO & Ors.) dated 31.01.2025, wherein this Court in a similar case in respect of the same establishment 16 dismissed the claim of the petitioner therein. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that an appeal is pending against the said dismissal and there is no stay granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 28. Considering the fact that the writ application was dismissed and the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed for by the petitioner therein the Division Bench was of the view that the order of stay was not called for. 29. Learned Counsel for the petitioners rely upon paragraph 13 of the said judgment in Dilip Kumar Chowdhury & Ors. (Supra), which is reproduced below:- “13. It is thus seen that when the provident fund dues were paid to the writ petitioners, the said amount also included their share in respect of the fund accumulated under “Reserve and Surplus” and as such there is no outstanding dues in respect of the petitioners.” 30. It is further submitted by Mr. Majumder that this court passed the said judgment on the observation that the provident fund dues/amount which was paid to the writ petitioner included their share in respect of the fund accumulated under “Reserve and Surplus”. It is thus submitted that the Court was clearly of the view that the employees/petitioner workmen were entitled to the said reserve and surplus. The said fact as to entitlement was clearly decided by the Court in the said judgment of Dilip Kumar Chowdhury (supra). 17 31. It appears from the said judgment Dilip Kumar Chowdhury (supra) relied upon by Mr. Gupta, that this Court considering the materials on record was of the view that the amount transferred to the RPF authorities was a consolidated amount which including the provident fund dues and also the reserve and surplus. It appears that the case before the Court as placed by the provident fund authorities was that there was no separation of funds under different heads as argued by the petitioner as per para 49, 50, 51 of this Scheme. 32. Thus this court in Dilip Kumar Chowdhury (supra) was under the impression that the total fund was a consolidated fund and there being no separate fund maintained for reserve and surplus, came to the conclusion that when the provident fund dues were paid to the employees, it included the reserve and surplus. As to the entitlement of their share in the reserve and surplus there was no doubt in the mind of the Court that the employees/writ petitioners were entitled to their share of the reserve and surplus. 33. In the present case, the petitioner herein has succeeded in placing several documents to substantiate their claim that the reserve and surplus account is separate head of account and the petitioners are clearly entitled to their share in respect of the said amount, as the past accumulation statement has been also supplied to the provident fund authorities showing the entitlement of each of the employees which includes their share of reserve and surplus. As such this court is of the view that on the new documents being 18 placed, this court is now in a position now to reconsider its view taken by this Court in Dilip Kumar Chowdhury (supra). 34. In support of the judgment, in Vineesh vs State of Kerala, Bail Application No. 14647 of 2025, decided on 9th March, 2026, of the Kerala High Court is relied upon:- “10. The learned counsel for the applicants placed much reliance on the decision rendered by me in Mohammed Noufal (supra), and the subsequent two orders of two other Single Benches of this Court, as referred to above. As rightly argued by the learned BA No.14647/2025 & conn.cases 2026:KER:20618 Public Prosecutors, the decision rendered by me in Mohammed Noufal (supra) was without noticing the relevant statutory provisions i.e., Section 22 of the Sand Act and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, as well as the binding precedents mentioned above. The subsequent two orders in Mohammed Salih (supra) and Sirajudheen (supra) were rendered simply following my order in Mohammed Noufal (supra). The above mentioned statutory provisions or binding precedents were not brought to the notice of the Court in Mohammed Salih (supra) and Sirajudheen (supra) also. 11. This Court is convinced that a mistake was made in the aforementioned order in Mohammed Noufal (supra). However, realising a mistake afterwards does not allow this Court to deviate from the binding precedents mentioned above, and usually a reference to the Division Bench would have been necessary. But in this case, the said prohibition does not apply since relevant provisions (Section 22 of the Sand Act and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act) and the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and of this Court on the point (Sanjay, Sayyed Hassan, Kanwar Pal Singh, Jayant, Sujith and Shihad) were neither noticed nor considered by this Court, which permits this Court to differ from its earlier view [See Joby v. District Collector, 2017 (1) KLT 183]. A decision is considered per incuriam if it is made in ignorance of a BA No.14647/2025 & conn.cases 2026:KER:20618 binding precedent or a relevant 19 statutory provision that significantly affects the outcome. A decision made per incuriam has no binding precedent force. 12. To persist with an error is not virtuous; correcting it is a duty of judicial integrity. The strength of a Judge lies not in the claim of infallibility, but in the courage to admit error and the humility to correct it when conscience and law reveal a truer course. Therefore, when a Single Judge renders a judgment without recognising a binding precedent and relevant statutory provisions, the same Judge is justified in subsequently differing from that earlier view. For these reasons, I am persuaded by my judicial conscience to differ from my earlier view in Mohammed Noufal (supra).” 35. The opposite party has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Creative Garments Ltd. v. Kashiram Verma reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 277 and also an order passed by the Division Bench in WPA 8134 of 2018, stating that the writ application is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the permanent addresses of all the parties is to be provided and in representative capacity also the permanent address of the workmen should be provided. It was also stated that service upon all workmen was to be affected if they were represented by a labour union or legal practitioner or an authorised representatives. 36. It appears that in the present case the instant writ application has been preferred not by an union, but by the petitioner no.1 which is a society registered under West Bengal Society Registration Act, 1961 and constitutes all superannuated, voluntarily, retired and resigned officer of HCL. The officers are the members of the society. The writ 20 application is of the year of 2020. The judgment relied upon is of the year 2023 and though the present writ application is a pending writ application, it is in the final stage of argument and as such the matter is taken up for final disposal in the interest of justice. 37. A very relevant document filed in WPA 10900 of 2026, has been brought to the notice of this Court. The said document is a letter dated 27.11.2013 issued by DGM (FNC) to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur and the same relates to submission of past accumulation statement as on 17.10.2011 consequent upon withdrawal of relaxation in respect of respondent no.4. 38. From the said past accumulation statement it appears that the respondent no.4 while transferring the fund has categorically, stated the amount on due calculation, under different heads in respect of whom the fund was transferred. 39. The writ petitioner in WPA 10900 of 2026, Harisankar Chattopadhyay –vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur & Ors., on filing a RTI application, also being an employee of respondent no.4 and similarly placed as the writ petitioners in Dilip Kumar Chowdhury (supra) and also the present writ petitioners, made a RTI application and the calculation shown in respect of the writ petitioner includes the share of the said employee, also under reserve and surplus among other heads. It appears the share of the said writ petitioner as to the reserve and surplus has been duly quantified in 21 the said past accumulation statement which has been done in the case of all employees. 40. If that is the case wherein it appears that the fund transferred to the provident fund authorities, along with past accumulation statement, showing the entitlement of each of the employees under the respective heads including their share of reserve and surplus, which is all duly quantified, this court finds that the said statement also clearly shows the entitlement of the employees/writ petitioners. As to the amount also quantified under the “reserve and surplus” which admittedly, was an amount accrued on the investment, of the contribution made to the provident fund account of the employee, any return from such investments is the lawful entitlement of the employee. 41. Para 28 of the EPF Scheme, 1952, provides:- “28. Transfer of accumulations from existing Provident Funds.- (1)Every authority in charge of, or entrusted with the management of, any Provident Fund in existence [* * *], the accumulations wherein are to be transferred to the Fund under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act, [or sub-section (5) of section 17 thereof, as the case may be] shall, [* * *] (i) send to the [* * *] Commissioner a statement showing the amount standing to the credit of each subscriber on the date of the transfer, the total accumulations to the credit of subscribers generally on that date and the advances, if any, taken by the subscribers [within twenty-five days of the application of the Scheme, or cancellation of the exemption, as the case may be] (ii) transfer to the Fund in the manner specified in sub- paragraph (2) the total accumulations standing to the credit 22 of the subscribers in relation to each factory [within ten days of the application of the Scheme, or cancellation of the exemption, as the case may be, in case of liquid cash in bank and within thirty days in case of securities]; and (iii) transfer to the [Central Board] all pass books, books of account and other documents relating to the said accumulation. (2)All accumulations standing to the credit of the subscribers, howsoever invested, shall be transferred to the Fund by the authority aforesaid in cash: [Provided that where the whole or any part of such accumulations consists of investments in Government securities, [or in securities guaranteed by appropriate Government as regards repayment of principal and payment of interest or in both] the authority making the transfer to the Fund shall transfer those securities at the price for which they were actually purchased or transfer a sum equivalent to such price. In case, however, the whole or any part of such accumulations is invested in National Savings Certificates or National Plan Savings Certificates, the appreciated value of such certificates at the time of the transfer will be taken into account in determining the amount of the accumulations to be transferred, provided that the difference between the face value of such certificate and their appreciated value at the time of the transfer has already been credited to the accounts of the subscribers:] [Provided further that where the whole or any part of such accumulations consists of investments in [securities bearing no guarantee of an appropriate Government as regards repayment of principal and payment of interest] the Central Government may, in exceptional cases, allow acceptance of the transfer of such securities from the authority making the transfer to the Fund at the price for which they were actually purchased.] Explanation.-The total amount of provident fund accumulations includes interest thereon and the authority in charge of the Fund shall transfer in cash any balance of interest on investments which happens 23 to be undistributed on the date of the transfer, or realised or realisable for the period prior to the registration of the securities in the name of the Central Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund. (3) Any cash transferred under sub-paragraph (2) shall be deposited in any office or branch of the Reserve Bank of India or the [State] Bank of India to the credit of the Central Board, and the receipt obtained in respect thereof shall be forwarded to the [* * *] Commissioner: Provided that where there is no office or branch of either of the two Banks at the place where the [factory or other establishment] is situated the amount shall be credited to the Central Board by means of a Reserve Bank of India [Governmental Draft at par]. (4) The accumulations transferred to the Fund in accordance with this paragraph shall be credited to the account of each of the members of the Fund, to the extent to which he may be entitled thereto having regard to the statement furnished by the authority aforesaid. (5) When the accumulations in any such Provident Fund as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1) have been so transferred to the Fund, the [* * *] Commissioner may, by notification in the Gazette of India, declare that the subscribers of such Provident Fund have now become members of the Fund and that the accumulations aforesaid have now become vested in the Central Board.” 42. Thus Para 28(4) EPF Act clearly states that the fund transferred should be credited to the account of each of the members (employees) of the fund as per statement, (past accumulation statement), which herein also quantifies the reserve and surplus amount. 24 43. In view of the said facts this Court is of the view that:- i. The impugned order that the amount lying with reserve and surplus fund cannot be distributed, in view of para 28 (2) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 is clearly erroneous and not in accordance with law being an abuse of the process of law. 25 ii. Para 28 of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 only talks transfer of fund and the interpretation of the authority concerned that once it is transferred to the Central Board Trustees, it becomes part of the EPF Corpus and belongs to all the members of the funds and not just employees of the establishment, is not in accordance with law being a totally erroneous, interpretation of the beneficial Act and Scheme, in view of the provision of Para 28(4) of the scheme. iii. Admittedly, the transfer of the fund in this case, in the year 2011 on the exemption/relaxation being withdrawn, included the provident fund contribution and reserve and surplus etc. and admittedly the provident fund dues have been paid to the employees by the authorities concerned even after the fund was transferred to the Central Board Trustees and as such the explanation of the authorities concerned stating that once the reserve and surplus is transferred, it becomes fund of the EPF Corpus is a wrong interpretation, which goes against the intention of the legislation while creating such laws for the benefits of the employees. 44. In view of the facts as discussed above, it is seen that the past accumulation statement while transferring all fund of the respondent no.4 clearly showed the provident fund dues and other dues and also clearly quantified the dues of each and every employee as per their entitlement to the share in the reserve and surplus fund. 26 45. As such when the provident fund dues could be paid from the same fund by the Central Board of Trustees on transfer, the quantified amount of reserve and surplus as shown in the past accumulation statement is also to be transferred to each of the employees as per their rightful and legal entitlement. 46. The said view of this Court is supported by the fact that the authorities at Hyderabad rightly interpreted the said entitlement of the employees and transferred the reserve and surplus amount to the respective employees as per their entitlement, in view of the fact that the same is quantified in the past accumulation statement. 47. The authority in Kolkata, West Bengal has totally misinterpreted the law in respect of the respondent no.1 in this case, in the impugned order dated 27.06.2019, observing that the amount has been transferred as reserve and surplus fund as shown in the balance sheet, by totally ignoring the details provided in the past accumulation statement while transferring the funds, on exemption being withdrawn. 48. Thus the impugned order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolkata, respondent no.3 and order dated 27.06.2019 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent no.1, being not in accordance with law are hereby quashed and set aside. 49. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay the dues of the employees as per the amount quantified against each of the employees in the past accumulation statement in respect of reserve 27 and surplus amount within two months from the date of this order along with interest at the statutory rate. 50. The writ application is accordingly allowed. 51. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 52. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 53. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)