HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1045/2019 Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Sewanivrat Karmchari Kalyan Samiti, Jodhpur Having Registered No. 287/ Jodhpur, R/o House No. 11/500, Parwati Sadan, Nandan Van, Chb, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. D. V. Prasad, The Chairman And Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India, Bara Khamba Lane, New Dehi 2. Shri Dewkant Dass, Deputy General Manager (Cpf Division, .Pension And Audit Division) Food Corporation Of India, Zonal Office North, Kandya Purna Sadan, Sector 24, Noida, U.p- 201301. 3. Shri Sunil Kumar Barthwal, The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Goi 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066. 4. Shri Prashant Kumar Sinha, The Sub Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Goi 130, Western Pal, Jodhpur – 342008. 5. Shri Ranjeet Kumar Jeengar, The Area Manager, Food Corporation Of India, District Office, Jodhpur- 342001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal Mr. Jitendra Choudhary Ms. Muskan Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Mr. Yashpal Khileree Mr. Nitin Trevedi JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 17/01/2025 1. Mr. Siddharath, appearing on behalf of the respondents – Employees Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPFO’) at the outset submitted that pursuant to the direction (2 of 3) [WCP-1045/2019] given by this Court in the present contempt petition, cases of all the 97 members of the petitioner – Association have been considered and out of them two were found eligible for pension under the scheme, as per the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of EPFO & Anr. etc. vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. etc., Special Leave Petition (c) No.8658-8659/2019; however, 95 persons were found ineligible. 2. He submitted that orders qua all those 97 employees have been placed on record. 3. Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have erroneously rejected petitioners’ claim and such rejection is contrary to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of R.C. Gupta & Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization & Ors. reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 so also subsequent judgment dated 04th November, 2022 in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra). 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that whether the claim of 95 members of the petitioner - Association have been rightly rejected or not, is a question that needs to be determined and adjudicated in appropriate proceedings; the same cannot be done in contempt jurisdiction. 5. This Court is prima facie satisfied with the response filed by the respondents that they bonafidely considered cases of all the 97 members of the petitioner - Association. There is no defiance, much less deliberate non-compliance. The respondents’ stand cannot be said to be arbitrary or vindictive as there is scope of arguments from both the side. (3 of 3) [WCP-1045/2019] 6. Notices of contempt are, therefore, discharged. 7. Needless to observe that the petitioner – Association or its members shall be free to take up their remedies against the order(s) of the respondent – Organization, which has rejected their claim. 8. Contempt petition stands dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA),J 117-Arun/-