CWP No. 18806 of 2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (249) CWP No. 18806 of 2021 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar ....Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 1. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by respondent No. 1, has been dismissed. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition already stands adjudicated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1543 of 2020 and other connected matters, decided on 13.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has not disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 18806 of 2021 -2- judgment dated 13.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 1543 of 2020 and other connected matter, relevant paras whereof read thus:- “x x x x 5. Proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of 1972 Act categorically provides that Appellate Authority may condone delay of maximum of 60 days. For the ready reference, Section 7(7) of 1972 Act is reproduced as below:- “(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be; may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days." 6. Concededly the petitioner preferred appeal before Appellate Authority beyond maximum period of delay which could be condoned. 7. On being confronted with judgment of Supreme Court in ‘Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and ors. Vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate expressed his inability to distinguish his case from the said judgment. 8. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in M/s Glaxo Smith (Supra), writ petitions cannot be entertained, thus, dismissed.” 5. Accordingly, in view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 22nd, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.07.27 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh