Mission Higher Secondary School v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3 of 2016 • Mission Higher Secondary School Bilaspur, Through Its Principal, Mission Higher Secondary, Brihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour, New Delhi.

2. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Through Its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Block- D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Vyavsayik Parishar, Pandri, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Enforcement Officer, Office Of The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Block- D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Vyavsayik Parishar, Pandri, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :

Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 06/01/2016

1. By Annexure P-1, the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Raipur has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why a warrant of arrest should not be issued against it for its failure to pay balance amount of arrears of Rs.14,00,628/-, for the period June, 1982 to December, 2002, April, 2003 to June 2003 and for the month of February, 2006 towards damages and interest.

2. According to the petitioner, employers contribution has already been deposited and the notice is only for payment of damages and interest. It is also the stand of the petitioner that earlier the petitioner has deposited a

sum of Rs.9,90,000/- as part of damages against demand Rs.18,90,128/-, however, the respondents themselves made a recalculation of the entire liability and on 24-9-14 decided to impose damages to the tune of Rs.94,346/- only, therefore, the petitioner is in fact entitled to refund of Rs.8,95,654/-.

3. In view of the nature of controversy and the above stated submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide and pass reasoned order on petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice within a period of eight weeks from today.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

5. Till the matter is considered and decided by respondent No.2, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu