OD-3 WPO/326/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SANJIB SENGUPTA. -VERSUS- REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) Date : 27th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Das, Adv. ...for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kr. Gupta, Adv. ...for the respondent No.1. Dr. Subraja Mohan Paul, Adv. Mr. Tarak Nath Paul, Adv. ...for the respondent no.2. The Court: The writ application has been preferred praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the provident fund dues in respect of the petitioner along with interest from 15th September, 1982 till the date of actual payment. In course of hearing, the respondent no.1 being the Regional Provident Fund authority has placed a report in the form of an affidavit wherein at paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 the said authority has stated as follows: “5. Your Respondent states that as per system and available office records no such establishment in the name and style of "Calcutta Management Association" is covered under the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions 2 Act, 1952 under the jurisdiction of the office of Respondent No. 1. Since no such establishment is covered under the purview of Employees' Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act, 1952) therefore, the allegations of non-payment of provident fund dues does not and cannot arise at all. 6. Your Respondent further states that since the establishment Association is not covered under the said Act, 1952, there is no provident fund account of the Writ Petitioner which is maintained by the provident fund authorities being the Respondent No. 1. * * * * * * * * * 8. It is submitted that since neither the Writ Petitioner is a member of the Employees' Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 nor the establishment association is covered under the provisions of the said Act, 1952; as such, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” Respondent No.2 /establishment on being served is being represented. It appears that the respondent no.3 is the same as the respondent no.2 and, as such, the respondent no.3 be expunged from the cause title of the writ application. Department to note accordingly. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/establishment submits that the petitioner’s claim has been made after a period of 42 years and, as such, the respondent no.2 needs to go through its records of last 50 years to ascertain as to whether the petitioner’s claim against the respondent no.2 is at all maintainable. An exception to the report has been filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner submits that he is entitled to the contribution and has placed the 3 documents at page 19 and 20 of the writ application. It appears that the respondent no.2 in the year 1982 issued a statement to the petitioner as follows: “STAFF PROVIDENT FUND 00-2-878 15 October 1982 Staff Provident Fund Position as on 15th September 1982 Name of Member Mr. Sanjib Sengupta Own subscription to the Fund Rs 8,015.00 Contribution by Employer 8,015.00 Interest on own subscription 4,699.11 Interest on Employer's contribution : 4,699.11 ____________ Rs. 25,428.22 =========== For Calcutta Management Association Staff Provident Fund (S K Biswas) Trustee” The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: a. Krishna Kumar Agarwal & Ors. vs. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. Workers Provident Fund Trust & Ors, reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 901; b. Kelvin Jute Company Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar Agarwal & Ors. reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 82; c. Kelvin Jute Company Ltd. Workers Provident Fund & Ors. vs. Krishna Kumar Agarwala & Ors. reported in (2016) 14 SCC 326; and, d. Board of Trustees, Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 4246. 4 On perusal of the judgments relied upon, this Court is of the view that those are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that admittedly the claim is 43 years old. As the petitioner has placed a document, the writ application (WPO/326/2026) is disposed of with a direction that the respondent no.2 herein shall decide the claim of the writ petitioner herein on the basis of the documents at page 19 of the writ petition being their statement dated 15.10.1982. The said claim of the writ petitioner be decided and addressed by the respondent no.2 within six months from the date of this order. On the point of maintainability of the writ application, the document at page 19 shows that the respondent no.2 had a trust fund and, as such, this Court is not willing to enter into the issue of maintainability of the writ application at this stage though it appears that there is no P.F. code number mentioned in the document at page 19. As such, if any such fund is maintained by the respondent no.2, the same be decided in accordance with law within the period indicated above. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities. (SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.) A.Sadhukhan