# Salik and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 682
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-04-30
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/salik-and-others-v-regional-provident-fund-commissioner-and-anr-42552
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Payment
of Court fee-where more than one
person-filed joint writ petition-claiming
similar
relief-for
enforcement
of
individual
Rights-Separate
Court
fee
payable.

Held: Para-19
The Court is of the opinion that in the
instant case, a joint writ petition filed by
the petitioners is for the enforcement of
its individual rights, and consequently,
joinder of more than one person though
permissible, but where the cause of
action is similar and not the same,
separate court fees is payable.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1984 (All) 46; 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228; AIR
2005 (All) 77; 1981 AIR (SC) 484; 1968 All LJ
210; AIR 1981 SC 484; 1991 AIR (All) 362;
2006 (4) SCC 484; 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228

## Text

682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
accordance with law and further that they
are not wanted or involved in any case in
connection with the above marriage or
living together.

15. This order would not be treated
by any authority as a certificate of
marriage between the parties.

16. The writ petition is disposed of.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20797 Of 2013

Salik and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
and Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sacchindra Upadhyay
Sri Ashok Mehta
Ms. Suman Sirohi

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Payment
of Court fee-where more than one
person-filed joint writ petition-claiming
similar
relief-for
enforcement
of
individual
Rights-Separate
Court
fee
payable.

Held: Para-19
The Court is of the opinion that in the
instant case, a joint writ petition filed by
the petitioners is for the enforcement of
its individual rights, and consequently,
joinder of more than one person though
permissible, but where the cause of
action is similar and not the same,
separate court fees is payable.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1984 (All) 46; 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228; AIR
2005 (All) 77; 1981 AIR (SC) 484; 1968 All LJ
210; AIR 1981 SC 484; 1991 AIR (All) 362;
2006 (4) SCC 484; 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1228

(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Tarun
Agarwala, J)

1. Sri Salik and 137 other exemployees of the erstwhile U.P. State
Cement
Corporation
Ltd.
Churk
Sonebhadra have filed the present writ
petition collectively praying for a writ of
mandamus commanding the Regional
Provident Commissioner-II, Varanasi and
Official
Liquidator
to
update
their
Provident Fund Accounts and pay the
entire Provident Fund dues including
pension. The facts leading to the filing of
the writ petition is, that the petitioners
contend that they are members of the
Employees Provident Fund Trust created
by the then management of the U.P. State
Cement Corporation Ltd. under the
Employees Provident Fund and Misc.
Provisions Act, 1952, which trust was
approved
by
the
Provident
Fund
Department. In this trust, the provident
fund contribution was regularly being
deducted
from
the
salary
of
the
petitioners. The Churk Unit of the U.P.
State Cement Corporation Ltd. was
wound up by an order of the Company
Judge dated 08.12.1999, and the Official
Liquidator was appointed as the liquidator
of the Company. From time to time, the
Company Judge has been passing various
orders directing the Official Liquidator to
provide the correct status of the Provident
Fund Trust. The accounts of this trust are
also being audited through an Auditor
recommended by the Regional Provident
2 All] Salik and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.
683
Fund Commissioner. It has been stated
that accounts of this trust has now been
transferred to the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Varanasi by the
Secretary of the erstwhile Trust, and after
the receipt of the audited accounts, some
of the employees were paid their dues, but
now the Provident Fund dues are not been
released. It has been alleged that more
than five years have passed and the
provident fund accounts have not been
updated nor the dues of the petitioners
have been released. It has also been stated
that the petitioners are entitled for pension
under the provision of Employees Pension
Scheme 1995 and, in this regard,
representations have been made to the
Official Liquidator, which has remained
pending. It is contended that neither the
representation has been decided nor the
pension is being released. Consequently,
the present writ petition was filed by the
137 ex employees of the erstwhile U.P.
State Cement Corporation Ltd. for a writ
of mandamus against the respondents.

2. At the time of the presentation of
the writ petition, the stamp reporter made
an endorsement that there is a deficiency
of court fee by Rs. 14,280/-. The
petitioners made an objection below the
report of the stamp reporter objecting to
the levy of the court fee contending that
the petitioners are the members of the
Employees Provident Fund Trust and
have a jural relationship and that the relief
claimed by them in the writ petition is one
and the same for all the petitioners, and
consequently, a single writ petition for
their
joint
cause
of
action
was
maintainable and one set of Court fee was
payable in view of the law laid down by
the Full Bench of this Court in Umesh
Chand
Vinod
Kumar
Vs.
Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti AIR 1984 (All)
46 as well as the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in Saroja Nand Jha
and others Vs. M/s. Hari Fertilizers,
Varanasi and others, 1994 (2) UPLBEC
1228 as well the decision of the learned
Single Judge in Track Parts of India
Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of U.P. And
others AIR 2005 (All) 77.

3. The objection placed by the
petitioner was duly considered by the
Taxing Officer who by its order dated
09th April, 2013 rejected the contention
of the petitioner and upheld the deficiency
of court fee as reported by the stamp
reporter. The Taxing Officer held that
each of the petitioner has an independent
and separate cause of action and in view
of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Mota Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1981
AIR (SC) 484 all the petitioners are liable
to
pay
separate
court
fee,
and
consequently, directed the petitioners to
make good the deficiency of court fee.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the
order of the Taxing Officer, has preferred
a separate application dated 11.04.2013 in
the present writ petition objecting to the
order of the Taxing Officer and praying
that the order the Taxing Officer and the
report of the stamp reporter be set aside
and the writ petition be held to be
maintainable on payment of one set of
Court fee.

4. The Court found that the State
Government was not a party in the writ
petition, and accordingly, the Court
directed the petitioner to serve a copy of
the writ petition to the State Government,
which was duly done.

5. The Court has heard Sri
Bhupendra Nath Singh, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Suman
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Sirohi, the learned Standing counsel for
the State Government, Sri Ashok Mehta,
the learned counsel for the Official
Liquidator and Sri Sacchindra Upadhyay,
the learned counsel for the Provident
Fund Authorities, respondent no. 1.

6. The issue is, whether a joint writ
petition by 137 persons is maintainable
and whether one set of Court fee is
payable or not?

7. Various issues were considered
by the Full Bench of this Court in Umesh
Chand Vinod Kumar (Supra). The Full
Bench answered the first question of law
holding that an association of persons
registered or unregistered could file a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India for the enforcement
of the right of its members. On the second
question of law, the Full Bench answered
that
a
single
writ
petition
was
maintainable on behalf of more than one
petitioner, not connected with each other
as partners or those who have no other
legal subsisting jural relationship, where
the questions of law and fact are common.
With regard to the third question, the Full
Bench
answered
that,
where
an
association of persons registered or
unregistered could file a writ petition for
the enforcement of the right of its
members, only one set of court fees would
be payable otherwise separate court fees
became payable. With regard to question
no. 4, the Full Bench held that where an
association of persons filed a writ petition
not for the enforcement of rights of its
members, but for the enforcement of its
own rights, in which case, a common writ
petition seeking enforcement of their
individual rights was a misjoinder of
parties and that the technical defect could
be cured. The Full Court held that since
there was an independent cause of action
and that the cause of action was not joint,
the
writ
petition
would
not
be
maintainable as a joint petition, but the
defect of misjoinder of parties was
curable upon payment of separate court
fee.

8. The Full Bench made a
categorical distinction while considering
question no. 1 and question no. 2. The
Full Court held that question no. 1 related
to locus standi of the petitioners and
question
no.
2
related
to
the
maintainability of the writ petition on
account of joinder or misjoinder of
parties. In that regard, the Full Court
considered the case of another Full Bench
decision of this Court in Mall Singh and
Others Vs. Smt. Laksha Kumari
Khaitan and Others 1968 All LJ 210
and held :

"The joinder of more than one
person under Article 226 can be permitted
only where the right to relief arises from
the same act or transaction and there is a
common question of law or fact or where
though the right of claim does not arise
from the same act or transaction the
petitioners are jointly interest in the cause
or causes of action."

9. The Full Bench also relied upon a
decision of the Supreme Court in Mota
Singh's case AIR 1981 SC 484 in which,
it was held that several truck operators,
who have filed a single writ petition
challenging their liabilities to pay tax by
each of the petitioners were liable to pay
separate court fee. The Supreme Court
held

"Having regard to the nature of these
cases where every owner of a truck plying
2 All] Salik and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.
685
his truck for transport of goods has a
liability to pay tax impugned in the
petition,
each
one
has
his
own
independent cause of action. A firm as
understood under the Partnership Act or
a Company as understood under the
Indian Companies Act, if it is entitled in a
law to commence action either in the firm
name or in the Company's name can do so
by filing a petition for the benefit of the
Company or the partnership and in such a
case
court-fee
would
be
payable
depending upon the legal status of the
petitioner. But it is too much to expect
that different truck owners having no
relation with each other either as partners
or any other legally subsisting jural
relationship of association of persons
would be liable to pay only one set of
court-fee simply because they have joined
as petitioners in one petition. Each one
has his own cause of action arising out of
the liability to pay tax individually and
the petition of each one would be a
separate and independent petition and
each such person would be liable to pay
legally payable court-fee on his petition.
It would be a travesty of law if one were
to hold that as each one uses high way, he
was common cause of action with the rest
of truck pliers."

10. The Full Bench held that a single
writ petition was maintainable on behalf
of more than one petitioners, where the
cause of action was the same, but such
joinder was not permissible, where the
cause of action was similar. The Full
Bench distinguished the "same cause of
action" from "similar cause of action"
and, in that light, held that a single writ
petition was maintainable, where the right
to the relief arose from the same act or
transaction in which case one writ petition
was maintainable on one set of court fee,
but whether the right of claim did not
arise from the same act or transaction and
where
the
petitioners
were
jointly
interested in the similar cause of action,
and even though, the writ petition filed by
more than one person was maintainable,
nonetheless, the cause of action not being
joint and there being an independent
cause of action of each of the petitioners,
such petitioners would be liable to pay
separate court fee.

11. In Mohammad Azaz Vs.
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.
Allahabad, 1991 AIR (All) 362 another
Full Bench of this Court considered the
case of mass copying by the students
using unfair means who filed a joint writ
petition in relation to the charge against
them of using unfair means. The Full
Bench held that there was an absence of
jural relationship and that a joint petition
was not maintainable.

12. In Prabhakaran & Ors. Vs. M.
Azhagiri Pillai (Dead) by LRs. & Ors
2006 (4) SCC 484, the Supreme Court
held that jural relationship between the
parties means legal relationship between
the parties with reference to their rights
and obligations.

13. In Saroja Nand's case 1994 (2)
UPLBEC 1228, the facts were that
separate notices were issued by the
authorities to the petitioners to vacate the
official quarters allotted to them. Since
they failed to vacate the official quarters,
the management filed separate complaints
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. A
joint writ petition was filed by all the
allottees before the Writ Court and the
stamp reporter gave a report about the
deficiency of court fee. The Division
Bench held that each of the petitioner had
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
a separate cause of action and were jointly
interested, and consequently, their case
comes under the category of question no.
2 framed by the Full Court in Umesh
Chand's Case (Supra). The Division
Bench held that since the relief was joint
and common and since one writ petition
was maintainable, consequently, one set
of court fee was payable.

14. In Track Parts of India AIR
2005 (All) 77, (Supra) the facts in that
case was that a trade union filed a writ
petition for the quashing of the order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner under Section 3 of the U.P.
Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of
Wages) Act, 1978 and for a writ of
mandamus commanding the authority to
issue a recovery certificate and pay the
money that was due and payable to the
workers, namely, the members of its
union. The Taxing Officer held that
separate court fee was required to be paid
by each member of the trade union.

15. The learned Single Judge relied
upon the answer given by the Full Bench
in Umesh Chand Case (Supra) to
question no. 1 and held that the writ
petition of the petitioner who was a trade
union,
was
maintainable,
since
the
application was filed by the union before
the Prescribed Authority under the U.P.
Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of
Wages) Act, 1978 and that the Trade
Union had also questioned the validity of
the order rejecting the said application in
the writ petition. The learned Single
Judge held that not only the writ petition
was maintainable, but one set of court fee
was payable.

16. In the light of the aforesaid
decision, the learned counsel for the
petitioner pressed that a joint writ petition
was maintainable wherein the petitioners
have a common goal and the relief
claimed by each of the petitioners was the
same, namely, for the release of their
provident fund dues and for payment of
pension. Consequently, not only a joint
writ petition was maintainable, but only
one set of court fee was payable. In this
regard, the learned counsel has strongly
relied upon the decision of the Division
Bench in Saroja Nand's Case.

17. On the other hand, the learned
Standing counsel submitted that the
decision of the Full Court in Umesh
Chand's case (Supra) as well as the
decision of the Supreme Court in Mota
Singh's case (Supra) makes it apparently
clear that a joint writ petition, having a
separate
cause
of
action
was
not
maintainable, and since there exist no
common order, a single writ petition was
not maintainable. It was urged that
assuming without admitting that a single
writ petition was maintainable, even then,
each of the petitioners had a separate
cause of action and consequently were
liable to pay separate court fees. Similar
arguments was raised by Sri Ashok
Mehta, the learned counsel for the
Official Liquidator.

18. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, the Court finds
that the Full Bench in Umesh Chand's
case (Supra) has clearly held that a joint
writ
petition
would
be
validly
maintainable if there is a legal subsisting
jural relationship of association of persons
where they have the same cause of action.
Assuming that the petitioners have a jural
relationship amongst them with reference
to their rights and obligations, and
consequently,
a
joint
writ
petition
2 All] Smt.Nasreen and Anr. Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr.
687
becomes maintainable, but in the instant
case, the Court finds that the petitioners do
not have the same cause of action. In fact,
each of the petitioners have an independent
cause of action. Each of the petitioners have
filed the petition for the enforcement of their
individual rights, namely, for release of their
provident fund dues and for payment of
pension. There is no common order nor a
common act or transaction.

19. The Court is of the opinion that
in the instant case, a joint writ petition
filed by the petitioners is for the
enforcement of its individual rights, and
consequently, joinder of more than one
person though permissible, but where the
cause of action is similar and not the
same, separate court fees is payable.

20. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court in all humility is of the view that
the Division Bench in Saroja Nand case
(Supra) did not consider paragraphs
36,37,38,39,40 and 41 of the decision of
the Full Bench in Umesh Chand's Case
(Supra)

21. This Court is of the view that in
the light of the decision of the Full Bench
in Umesh Chand (Supra), each of the
petitioners, having a separate cause of
action, and having filed a joint writ
petition
for
enforcement
of
their
individual rights are liable to pay separate
court fee. The order of the Taxing Officer
is affirmed. The application of the
petitioners dated 11.04.2013 is rejected.
The petitioners are consequently directed
to cure the defect and pay the court fee as
reported by the stamp reporter within a
week.

22. Put up this matter on Monday
i.e. 06.05.2013 for admission.

23. The Registrar General is directed
to circulate this order to the Stamp
Reporter as well as to the Taxing Officer
within two weeks.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21853 Of 2013

Smt. Nasreen and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C and Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Aashish Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:

U.P. Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules 2011Rule
220
B-
Release
of
amount
of
Compensation-invested in fixed deposit-
premature release application-on ground to
repay the amount of loan-rejection by
Tribunal-held not proper purpose for repay
of loan-itself to improve the financial
condition
of
claimant-who
are
major
direction to release amount of fixed deposit
given.

Held: Para-12
In the instant case, the claimants have
made a categorical statement that the
amount was required to be encashed
prematurely in order to repay the loans,
which they had taken. Obviously, if the
loan is repaid, their economic condition
would improve, which would ultimately
lead to improving their income. Such
ground is a relevant ground coupled with
the fact that the claimants are major and
minor children are not involved which
would require the compensation amount
to be kept in a fixed deposit for their
upkeep. Further, if the amount is invested
for a period of time, the claimants will not
be able to enjoy the compensation.