Neutral Citation Date of reserved for orders : 04.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2026 Date of uploading : 29.06.2026 APHC010118132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1544/2024 Between: 1. SIDDINENI VENKATESWARA RAO, , S/O. GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 19/I36-B, BETHAVOLU, GUDIWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. VAKA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. AMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. SELAPADU VILLAGE, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. V. JAYADUTT,, S/O. S.V. SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. SEKURU VILLAGE, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. VUYYURU SARABANDHI,, S/O. V. PAPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 10-1-30/8, VEJENDLAVARI STREET, CENCHUPETA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 2 5. RAVULA SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O. SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 9-224/1, VADLAMUDI X ROADS, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 6. NARRA SIVA PRASAD, , S/O. HANUMARFTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 8-231/3, ANGALAKUDURU, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 7. B. PRATAP KUMAR,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. ANGALAKUDURU, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 8. V. SRIKRISHNA,, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. UMA TOWERS, GANGANAMMAPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 9. V. SUDHAKAR,, S/O. V. SRIHARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O.VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 10. CH. SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VEERA RAGHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 212, LAXMI EXOTICA APARTMENTS, MPL ROAD, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. G. RAGHU KUMAR,, S/O. RAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. UMA TOWERS, GANGANAMMAPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 12. P. SREE RAMA MURTHY,, S/O. LATE PALETI ANAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 13-16-44/1, PINAPADU, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. RAJESWAR RAJESH, WORKING AS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, 3RD LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, .GUNTUR DISTRICT. NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 3 2. GR MADAVASANAKAR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, 3RD LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. SRI P GOPALA KRISHNAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANGAM DAIRY, VADLMUDI, CHEBROLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to call the respondents 1 to 3 to this Honble Court and punish them for their willfull and deliberate violation of the interim orders passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 25295 of 2023 dated 29-09-2023 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) 2. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI The Court made the following: NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.1544 OF 2024 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case is filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.25295 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 & 2 and Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and perused the material available on record. 1. W.P.No.25295 of 2023 is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No. 6 in approving the petitioners’ applications for validation of the Joint Option for higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) guidelines. Despite more than 100 days having passed since the applications were received, Respondent No. 6 has failed to take any action. The petitioners also challenge the inaction of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in not taking steps against Respondent No. 6 for the delay. Such inaction is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners therefore seek a direction to Respondent No. 6 to approve their Joint NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 5 Option Forms for higher pension and forward the same to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 without further delay. 3. Upon hearing both the parties, this Court passed interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.25295 of 2023 dated 29.09.2023, as follows: “Notice before admission returnable in three weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out notice to Respondent No.6 by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service into the Registry within three weeks. There shall be interim direction directing Respondent No.6 to approve the joint option forms submitted by the petitioners and forward the same to Respondent No.4 forthwith. Thereupon, Respondent No.4 shall consider the same. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks. Post after three weeks.” 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that, though the petitioner immediately approached the respondent authorities and submitted representation along with order copy to implement the order passed by this Court, the respondents have neither acted upon the representation not implemented the orders of this Court. The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent with a view to harass the petitioners who are eligible for higher pension has not processed the online applications for extraneous reasons, which according to the petitioner amounts to willful disobedience and NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 6 contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations. It is stated that, after this Hon’ble Court passed interim order dated 29.09.2023, Respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 21.02.2024 to Respondent No.3 as to whether the establishment is willing to upload the joint options in respect of the members mentioned in the said writ petition. In reply, the employer/Respondent No.3 herein replied that they are verifying the wage details of the writ petitioners. It is further stated that, in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8658-8659 of 2019 dated 04.11.2022, EPFO has provided online provision to the eligible pensions who joined after 01.09.2014 to submit joint option by the employee and employer to decide the eligibility of the employees for pension on higher wages. To facilitate the employees, the last date for submission of joint option is extended upto 31.12.2023 and last date for verification by the Employer is extended upto 31.05.2024. The employer has to approve the option filed by the employee duly verifying the data furnished by the employee and his eligibility for pension on higher wages. The joint option must contain the proof of remittance of employers share in provident fund on NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 7 higher wages exceeding the prevent wage ceiling of 5000/6500 and proof of joint option under Para 26(6) of EPF Scheme duly verified by the employer. Finally, it is stated that, the present contempt case is filed by the writ petitioners is illegal and improper as the joint option forms of the writ petitioners are pending with the employer establishment. Since the joint option is involving the willingness of both the employee and employer, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 cannot compel/force the employer to approve the joint options of the writ petitioners, as such, since there is no deliberate or intentional disobedience on the part of Respondent Nos.1 & 2, they requested this Court to close the contempt proceedings initiated against Respondent No.1 & 2. 6. Respondent No.3/Employer filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the organization is covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and as such they are contributing employees share and employer share to the Regional Provident Fund Organization, Guntur, on higher wages without any default from the date of commencement of the organization from 1978. The organization is remitting the monthly contributions on actual salary but not on statutory ceiling for each and every employee in the respondent organization, however, they could not trace out the old records for certain periods NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 8 which were maintained manually for certain period. The organization informed the petitioners that they are not in a position to process their applications for higher pensions as they could not trace out their wage particulars for some period. Hence, the system of Provident Fund Organization is not accepting the partial wages for process of their applications. The date for submission of joint option in online application for higher pension was extended for another three months i.e till 31.05.2024 and the organization has also informed the same to the petitioners that they are taking necessary steps to trace out the old records pertaining to their wages. As and when the records would be found, the organization would process their online applications for higher pension. Further, it is stated that, all the relevant manual documents regarding the wages were submitted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the organization/employer and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 can process the online applications duly entering previous years contributions for processing petitioners pension. Since the employer/organization is handicapped owing to lack of records, they could not process the online applications, however, the employer is willing to approve the joint option as we have submitted all relevant manual documents to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and requested this Court to close the contempt proceedings initiated against Respondent No.3. NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 9 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court, by order dated 29.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.25295 of 2023, specifically directed the concerned employer to approve the joint option forms submitted by the petitioners and forward the same to the EPFO authorities for further consideration, and that the entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three weeks. Despite service of the order and submission of representations by the petitioners requesting implementation thereof, the respondents failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly Respondent No.3, in not processing the petitioners' applications for higher pension amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court, thereby attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that there was no willful or intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court. It is contended that, pursuant to the interim order, the EPFO authorities addressed correspondence to Respondent No.3 seeking necessary verification and approval of the petitioners' joint option forms. According to the respondents, the process of consideration of higher pension claims requires verification and approval by the NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 10 employer, and the EPFO authorities cannot compel the employer to approve or upload the joint option forms. Since the applications were pending with the employer for verification of requisite particulars, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not in a position to process the claims independently. Therefore, in the absence of any deliberate or conscious violation of the order of this Court, the contempt proceedings against them are liable to be closed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3/employer submitted that the establishment has been regularly remitting provident fund contributions on actual wages and has been complying with its statutory obligations. It is contended that certain old wage records, which were maintained manually, could not be readily traced and, in the absence of complete wage particulars, the online portal was not accepting the applications for higher pension. Consequently, the employer was unable to process the petitioners' applications within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that efforts were being made to trace the relevant records and that all available manual records had already been furnished to the EPFO authorities. Learned counsel would submit that the employer has no intention to deny the benefit of higher pension to the petitioners and is willing to approve the joint option forms NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 11 upon resolution of the record-related issues. Therefore, the alleged non- compliance was neither deliberate nor willful and does not warrant initiation of contempt action. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that to constitute civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the disobedience complained of must be willful, deliberate and intentional. In the present case, the explanation offered by the respondents indicates that the delay in implementation of the order was occasioned by the requirement of verification of records and the difficulties faced by the employer in tracing certain old wage particulars necessary for processing the petitioners' claims. The material placed before the Court further discloses that correspondence was exchanged between the EPFO authorities and the employer with regard to compliance of the order. Thus, the circumstances placed on record do not disclose any deliberate or conscious attempt on the part of the respondents to flout the order of this Court. In the absence of material establishing willful disobedience, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 12 11. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners from working out such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this contempt case shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 24.06.2026 SP Whether the order is: Speaking No Reasoned yes Reportable No Non-reportable Yes NV,J CC No.1544 of 2024 13 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.1544 OF 2024 Date: 24.06.2026 W SP