Jharkhand High Court
Ranchi Municipal Corporation vs The Employees' Provident Fund ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:33776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(L) No. 6260 of 2025
--
Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Suraj Prakash Singh Choudhary, aged about 42 years, son of J.P.S. Choudhary, working at Ranchi Municipal Corporation Building, Kutchery Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District Ranchi, PIN 834001, Jharkhand .... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Employees' Provident Fund Organization through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Barakhambha Road, P.O, P.S. & District New Delhi.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, Ranchi, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN-834002 (Jharkhand).
3. The Area Enforcement Officer, Ranchi, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Ranchi, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN- 834002 (Jharkhand).
4. The Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Ranchi, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN-834002 (Jharkhand).
... Respondents
--
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate M/s. Raj Kumar Gupta, Neha Pandey, Karbir, Advocates For the Resp.-E.P.F : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
--
02/12.11.2025 The instant application was initially preferred by the Petitioner praying for a direction upon the Respondent- E.P.F.O. to refrain from initiating any recovery proceedings against the Petitioner till hearing and disposal of the stay petition filed by the Petitioner-Corporation before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Appellate Authority under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in EPFA No. 15/ 2025.
2. The ground for filing the instant appeal was that the Appellate Authority was not functioning regularly; however, 1 2025:JHHC:33776 Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the EPF Organization submits that the case has been listed tomorrow i.e., 13.11.2025.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that vide order dated 25th September, 2025, the Appellate Tribunal has stayed the demand raised under Section 14B of EPF & MP Act,1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) by directing that "the Respondents is directed not to take any coercive action against the appellant till the disposal of the appeal". However, the concerned Appellate Authority did not grant any stay on payment of interest demand raised under Section 7-Q of the Act in view of the fact that the same is not appealable.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that immediately pursuant to passing of the aforesaid order, the Respondents became active and issued a "Prohibitory Order"
to the Bank of India by its letter dated 07.11.2025, and have ordered the Bank to pay the amount of Rs. 11,93,24,929/-.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the Principal amount to the tune of Rs. 6,50,35,158/- raised under Section 7A of the Act has already been recovered by the Respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court to the letter given to his client by the Bank on 11.11.2025 and submits that when the principal amount has already been recovered by the Respondent-EPF and Section 14B of EPF & MP Act deals with penal damage which has 2 2025:JHHC:33776 already been stayed by the Appellate Authority; there is no reason why the demand under Section 7Q which relates to interest on the principal amount be not stayed.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits; though the letter dated 11.11.25 could not be filed by any affidavit due to paucity of time, as such, the same may be taken on record and the instant application may be disposed of; however, the order dated 25.09.2025 refusing the stay of demand raised under Section 7Q of EPF & MP Act be stayed, till disposal of the appeal.
6. He further submits that he would be appearing on each and every date and he would not seek any adjournment and the Appellate Authority may be directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, subject to his convenience.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that amount of interest may be directed to paid by the Petitioner- Municipal Corporation and tomorrow is the date fixed for appeal.
8. To decide the lis involved in the instant application, it is necessary to go through the order dated 25th September 2025 passed in EPFA No. 15 of 2025 and also the letter dated 11.11.2025 sent by the Petitioner-Bank. Both are taken on record.
9. After going through the pleadings and the documents, few things are evident:
3
2025:JHHC:33776
i) The principal amount of liability has been recovered by the Respondent-Authority;
ii) The impugned order with regard to damage under Section 14B of EPF & MP Act is stayed;
iii) The stay on the demand of interest under Section 7Q of EPF & MP Act is denied;
iv) The Appellate Authority is in seisin of the matter and the matter is listed tomorrow.
10. Accordingly, interest of justice would be sufficed by staying the demand notice issued under Section 7Q of EPF & MP Act in view of the fact that damage, penalty and interest are all inter linked based on the principal amount. When the principal amount has already been recovered and the learned Appellate Authority has already stayed the damage portion; therefore, refusing to stay the demand made under Section 7Q of EPF & MP Act on the ground that the same is not appealable does not seem to be justified.
11. As stated hereinabove, any damage penalty and interest arise out of the main principal amount and principal amount has since been recovered and the penal damage has already been stayed; therefore, interest of justice would be sufficed by staying the demand of interest under Section 7Q of EPF & MP. Act.
Ordered accordingly.
12. It goes without saying that since the matter is listed tomorrow; therefore, the learned Appellate Authority is requested to dispose of the matter as early as possible subject 4 2025:JHHC:33776 to his pre-occupation. However, it is made clear that the demand of interest shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
13. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 12th November, 2025 Jk Uploaded on 12/11 /2025 5