1 APHC010167642017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21853/2017 Between: D Sattibabu & 10 Others, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Union Of India Rep By Secy Labour New Delhi 4 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T S VENKATARAMANA 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3. P RAMABHOOPAL REDDY 4. RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: 2 “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th and 5th respondent in not extending the statutory benefits under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (Act No.19 of 1952) is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principals of natural justice and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently seeking a direction to respondents 2&3 to consider and dispose off representation dated 20-06-2017 submitted by the petitioners seeking intervention as per the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (Act No.19 of 1952) and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri P.Rama Bhoopal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents 4 and 5 are not extending the statutory benefits of EPF to the petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that they have submitted a representation dated 20.06.2017 to the respondents 2 and 3. But still it is pending before them. Learned counsel would further submit that a direction may be given to the respondents 2 and 3 to take an appropriate decision over the representation dated 20.06.2017. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that a direction may be given to respondent No.3 to consider the representation and take appropriate decision according to law. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 6. Considering the submissions made, it is apposite to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.06.2017 and take appropriate decision according to governing rules and law and communicate the copy of order to the petitioners. This exercise has to be done within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 26.03.2025 ARR 4 453 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21853/2017 Dt.26.03.2025 ARR