M. Obanna, v. Employees Provident Fund organization,
WP/15109/2017 · 2025-10-26
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 57603 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 57603 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010106172017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15109/2017 Between:
1. M. OBANNA, KURNOOL DIST., -
...PETITIONER AND
1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION HYD 5 OTHERS, -
...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 18671 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent:
1. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15109/2017 ORDER:
The writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:-
“……declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not including the weightage of two years in terms of rule 10(2) of Employee Provident Scheme rules and in not paying pension of three months from 01.02.2005 to 26.04.2005 as being illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to include the weightage of two years in terms of rule 10(2) of Employee Provident Scheme rules and pay pension of 3 months from 01.02.2005 to 26.04.205, to the petitioner and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..……”
2. At the time of considering the matter, Sri Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V. Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that amounts due to the petitioners were paid. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive.
3. Recording the above submissions, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Date: 27.10.2025 ANS
36 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 15109/2017 Date: 27.10.2025 ANS