Chattisgarh High Court
Employees Provident Fund Organization vs Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya on 17 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WA No. 136 of 2022
Employees Provident Fund Organization and others Versus Guru Ghasidas
Vishwavidyalaya and another
17/03/2022 Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Somya Rai,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Heard on admission.
Writ appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice to respondent No.1 only.
Mr. Somya Rai, learned counsel assisting Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Notice to respondent No.2 is not necessary at this stage.
Also heard on IA No.01 of 2022, application for grant of stay/interim relief.
Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by impugned order dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure-A/1) the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and orders dated 18.01.2022 and 19.01.2022, issued under Section 8F of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 have been quashed and the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) has been held entitled to claim restitution of the amount of Rs.1,37,43,353/- & Rs.60,28,875/-, which is ex facie illegal and contrary to law and, therefore, the same is liable to be stayed till the matter is heard finally. He relied on Recovery Officer (Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner) and another vs. Municipal Council, Dabra and another 1 and Employees Provident Fund Organization vs. Rollwell Forge Ltd. & 1 2.
1 2017 (4) MPLJ 219 On the other hand Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that adopting coercive method huge amount of Rs.1,37,43,353/- & Rs.60,28,875/- have been recovered from the respondent No.1, which is an educational institution and that is the reason learned Single Judge has quashed the orders 18.01.2022 and 19.01.2022. He relied on Ferro Concrete Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore and others 3; Vijaya Bank vs. EPFO and others 4; Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another 5 and OPTO Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank and others 6.
Issue notice to the respondent No.1 on this IA, as above.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply to this IA.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after considering their rival submission on the application for stay, since the writ appeal is admitted for hearing and matter requires consideration, it would be expedient to stay the part of the impugned order dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure-A/1) directing restitution/refund of amount of Rs.1,37,43,353/- & Rs.60,28,875/- from the appellant herein, contained in Para-17.
It is ordered accordingly.
List the matter after four weeks.
C.C. as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
s@if
2 Letter Patent Appeal No.12 of 2010/Spl. Civil App. No.3347 of 20229, decided on 15.06.2011
3 2002 (1) MPLJ 116
4 2014 SCC Online Del 3877
5 2019 SCC Online Del 10304
6 (2021) 6 SCC 707