- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17278 WP No. 102223 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 102223 OF 2017 (L-PF) BETWEEN: UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, YATTINAGUDDA CAMPUS, KRISHINAGAR, DHARWAD-580 005, BY ITS REGISTRAR, SHRI. UMESH H. KUSUGAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. KUSHAL V BOLMAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. DAILY WAGE AND MONTHLY RATED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS DHARWAD-05. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (SERVICE RULES-1), THROUGH HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR AGA FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.KN/GLB/HBL/ENF/2015/8822/2507 DATED 07.01.2015 AT ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN VIDE SUMMONS CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17278 WP No. 102223 of 2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO.GB/HBI/SRO/EO/2016 DATED 07.12.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.01.2015 at Annexure-J. In terms of the said order, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Hubli in exercise of the powers under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘the Act, 1952’) has held that the amount required to be contributed by the employer is not contributed and initiated the proceedings will be held under the provisions of the Act of 1952 for not complying with the requirement of the provisions of the Act of 1952. To the said show cause notice dated 07.01.2025, the petitioner replied on 10.06.2016. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17278 WP No. 102223 of 2017 3. The petitioner in terms of the said reply contended that Government of Karnataka has regularised daily wage employees with effect from 03.08.2015 vide notification dated 22.02.2014 and under the said notification, the employees of the petitioner/University are coming under the New Pension Scheme as such, there is no need to make contribution to the Provident Fund. The New Pension Scheme is not yet implemented. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 the petitioner/University is exempted from the application of the Act of 1952. Section 16(1)(b)of the Act of 1952 reads as under:- “16. Act not to apply to certain establishments.—[(1) This Act shall not apply— (a)xxx (b) to any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits;” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17278 WP No. 102223 of 2017 5. Though Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, 1952 exempts the establishment under the control of the Central Government or the State Government from the application of Act of 1952, one more condition that is required to be met is that there has to be the benefit of contributory Provident Fund or old age pension in accordance with the law in accordance with any scheme or Rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits. So far, no such scheme is brought to the notice of the Court to say that the scheme is made applicable to the employees of the petitioner/University. 6. It is also required to be noticed that the learned senior counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the notification dated 22.02.2014 in terms of which under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Rules, 2013 the application of 1952 is exempted. 7. Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents would submit that notification dated 22.02.2014 is not yet given effect to. Under these circumstances, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17278 WP No. 102223 of 2017 Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to grant the relief claimed in the petition. 8. It is also submitted that till 2015 the contribution is made by the University to the employees under the Act of 1952. However, thereafter, the contribution is stopped on the premise that Rules, 2013 marked at Annexure-D exempts the petitioner/University from making the contribution. Since the Rules, 2013 is not been given effect to, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. W.P. No.66782/2010 is de-linked from the above petition. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2