Madras High CourtWP/19566/2026disposed of

M.P.Thirunaukkarasu v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

2026-06-02Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-06-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER M.P.Thirunavukkarasu Petitioner Vs

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Chennai (North), Employees' Provident Fund Organization, No.37, Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

2.The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO Head Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Plate A Ground Floor, Office Block-II, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi-110023.

Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to refund a sum of Rs.34,77,656/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only), remitted towards Higher Pension Contribution, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner:

Mr.Tennyson Samuel Pushparaj For Respondents:

Mr.R.Vishnu 1/4

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the action of the 1st Respondent failing to refund a sum of Rs.34,77,656/-, remitted towards Higher Pension Contribution even after several representations by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.34,77,656/- into the account of the 1st respondent to seek an enhanced pension. This amount represented the required contribution over his period of employment, which needed to be deposited upon opting for the enhanced pension and now he retired from service. The deposit was made on 29.05.2025. However, due to personal reasons, the petitioner withdrew his option for the enhanced pension and sought the return of the Rs.34,77,656/- from the 1st respondent. Within six days of the deposit, he submitted a formal representation to this effect via email on 04.06.2025. Since the same has not been considered and the amount has not been refunded to the petitioner's account, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

3. Mr.R.Vishnu, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2/4

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired from service and not receiving enhanced pension. The petitioner had communicated about the withdrawal of his option for enhanced pension through e-mail and has also given letters seeking return of the said amount.

6. Considering the above facts, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.06.2025 for return of the amount of Rs.34,77,656/- and act accordingly within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

K.SURENDER J.

02-06-2026 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To 1.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Chennai (North), Employees Provident Fund Organization, No.37, Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

3/4

K.SURENDER J.

vum 02-06-2026 4/4