Central Board Of Trustees Epfo Through A.P.F.C. Delhi (South) vs M/S Neel Punj Services

$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 07 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC015248992017
+ W.P.(C) 11373/2017
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES EPFO THROUGH
A.P.F.C. DELHI (SOUTH) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv.
versus
M/S NEEL PUNJ SERVICES .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner prays as under :
“a. allow the Writ Petition and to set aside the
impugned order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in
ATA No. 1452(4)/2015;
b. direct the respondent to deposit 75% of the assessed
amount before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, passed
under section 7-A of the Act by the PF Authorities;
and
c. pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
2. The Petitioner department is aggrieved that the learned
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, by way of Impugned
Order dated 22.12.2015, decided to hear the appeal filed by the
respondent under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Fund &
Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, without insisting on pre-deposit.
3. The Impugned Order merely concerns the issue of waiver of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11373/2017 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
18:15:51

statutory requirement of pre-deposit. Section 7O of the Employees’
Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, provides that
an employer preferring an appeal against an Order passed under
Section 7A, shall deposit 75% of the assessed amount as pre-deposit.
Pertinently, the proviso thereto itself vests the Appellate Authority
with the discretion to waive or reduce such pre-deposit, either wholly
or in part, while recording reasons for the same. A perusal of the
Impugned Order reflects that the learned Tribunal, while considering
the Respondent’s application seeking exemption from depositing 75%
of the assessed amount, has recorded that the Respondent had already
deposited a substantial sum of ₹8,59,095/- against the assessed
liability of ₹14,95,845/-. The learned Tribunal, taking note of the
amount already deposited as well as the manner in which the
assessment had been computed, exercised its discretion and granted
waiver of the balance pre-deposit requirement.
4. Such an order is essentially discretionary in nature and the
observations have not been shown to suffer from any infirmity and
even the petition is silent on that aspect. This court finds no merit in
the argument raise that the impugned Order is bereft of any reasons
for waiving the pre-deposit condition. Due application of mind can be
discerned through brief reasoning in the impugned order which
admittedly does not dispense with the appeal on merit and merely
enables the Respondent to pursue the statutory remedy without
insisting upon further pre-deposit.
5. Additionally, though reliance has been placed upon Judgment
dated 17.12.2007, passed in W.P. (C) No. 9177/2007, titled Delhi
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11373/2017 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
18:15:51

Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee v. CBT through APFC
and EPFAT, the same was passed in a distinct factual context
wherein, the learned Appellate Tribunal had reduced the condition of
deposit from 75% to 40%. When the same was assailed by the
Petitioner therein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, categorically
noted that this Court is not required to examine the merits of the case
at this stage and the mere question which needed to be decided was
whether the condition imposed was on a “ higher side” . Thus, while
deciding the same this Court held that the same is “ wee bit on the
higher side ” and further reduced the condition from 40% to 25% of
the determined award.
6. Hence, it emerges that the above judgment does not at all
advance the case of the Petitioner.
7. What is even more significant is that, despite the passage of
considerable time, the statutory appeal itself remains pending before
the learned Appellate Tribunal and has yet not been adjudicated on
merits. On being pointedly asked, it has been informed that the appeal
is still pending and is yet to be decided by the learned Appellate
Tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner Department has
filed a frivolous writ petition and instead of insisting on addressing
arguments on the appeal, is pursuing the present writ petition, from
last one decade.
8. The record further reveals that the writ petition had, in fact,
been dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2017 upon a statement made
on behalf of the Petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the same.
Thereafter, the petition came to be restored on 05.02.2020 at the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11373/2017 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
18:15:51

instance of the Department.
9. The Court cannot lose sight of the larger concern of avoidable
litigation which continues to burden the judicial system. Courts have
repeatedly deprecated the practice of the Government and its
instrumentalities pursuing matters further, even where no substantial
question of law of public importance arises and the decision under
challenge does not warrant further interference. The State, being a
responsible litigant and a public institution, is expected to exercise
greater circumspection before invoking the jurisdiction of a higher
court. The filing and pursuit of proceedings which are devoid of merit
or which could reasonably have been brought to an end at an earlier
stage not only causes avoidable hardship to the opposite party but also
consumes valuable judicial time and contributes to the ever-increasing
burden of pending litigation. The concern assumes greater significance
when the State itself is a substantial litigant before the courts and,
therefore, bears a corresponding responsibility to ensure that its
litigation is pursued only where there exists a genuine and tenable
basis for doing so.
10. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner reflects a
wholly unwarranted invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court. Judicial time has been consumed in examining a challenge to
an interlocutory order which neither determines the rights of the
parties finally nor causes any prejudice incapable of being addressed
in the pending appeal.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs
quantified at ₹50,000/-, for wasting precious time of the Court. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11373/2017 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
18:15:51

said amount shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. The
Petitioner shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from the
officer(s) responsible for taking the decision to institute and continue
the present proceedings.
12. Since the statutory appeal is stated to be pending, the learned
Appellate Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal as
expeditiously as possible.
13. The Courts are inundated with work and severe docket
congestion is caused by frivolous cases, which are being pursued for
prolonged periods, further burdening the public exchequer. A
substantial portion of this litigation includes stale disputes which have
lost their significance over time or where no live legal issues remain
for adjudication. Since such matters are being pursued by the
Government, the same results in unjustifiable financial outlay on
litigation and drainage of public exchequer as expenses incurred
outweigh the monetary stakes involved in the matters.
14. Accordingly, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, in
coordination with Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, is
directed to forthwith consider formulating a comprehensive policy and
execute an institutional audit to identify and withdraw such
avoidable/stale/unmeritorious/insignificant cases, to assist this court in
safeguarding public resources and avoiding wastage of precious
judicial time.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 /KDK’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 11373/2017 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
18:15:51