UKHC010128542026 2026:UHC:6821 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2203/2026 Gurukul Kangri Haridwar --Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and another --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundri, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 01.05.2025, issued by Manager/Branch Head, Punjab National Bank, BHEL Sector-4, Haridwar. By said letter, request made by Registrar of the petitioner- University for higher rate of interest against EPF/GPF contribution of its employees was turned down. 3. Perusal of impugned letter dated 01.05.2025 reveals that Bank had asked the University to provide the Agreement, if any, between the Bank and the University, for higher rate of interest and also the document indicating that the University was exempted by the appropriate Government from applicability of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, however, the University was not able to furnish the documents desired by the Bank. The Bank thus declined to entertain the claim made by petitioner for higher rate of interest. UKHC010128542026 2026:UHC:6821 4. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 5. The employees’ contribution towards provident fund has to be deposited with the competent authority as per provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any satisfactory answer to the query raised whether the University has been exempted by the appropriate government from applicability of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 7. In the absence of any agreement between the Bank and University, the claim staked by the petitioner-University for higher rate of interest is without any basis. Even otherwise also, the dispute raised in this petition is one between a customer and a service provider, which cannot be decided in public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 04.08.2026 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031 a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626 D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.08.06 19:28:01 +05'30'