IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5567 of 2009 M/S BIHAR INSTITUTE OF LAW, Ashiyana More, P.S. Airport Raja Bazar, Patna through Mr.Subodh Kumar Sinha, the Principal-in-charge son of late Sachidanand Sinha-----------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner R Block, Patna 2.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner R.Block,Patna 3.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,R.Block, Patna 4.Recovery Officer, Provident Fund,R.Block,Patna 5.The Presiding Officer, EPFAT, N.Delhi ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Shivaji Pandey,Sr.Advocate Arun Shrivastava For the respondent RPF authorities:Mr.R.S.Pradhan, Sr.Advocate Mr.Rajeev Lochan ----- 2. 01.05.2009 Heard Mr.Shivaji Pandey, learned Sr.counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.S.Pradhan, learned Sr.counsel for the respondent RPF authorities. Mr.Shivaji Pandey ultimately limits his submission to the point that the EPF Appellate Tribunal has admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 30.12.2008 passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 but prior to the said date the respondent authorities had already recovered an amount of Rs.7,49,000/- from the Bank, which is more than 50% of the assessed amount of Rs.12,82,883/-. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the amount realized is in fact 2 Rs.7,74,000/- but due to inadvertence the lesser amount has been mentioned in the writ petition. It is, therefore, contended by learned counsel that even under the order dated 24.3.2009 of the EPF Tribunal the respondent authorities are obliged to refund the amount which is in excess of 50% of the assessed amount in view of the stay of operation of the impugned order to the extent of 50%. Mr.Pradhan opposes the said contention and states that the recovery has been made prior to the passing of the aforesaid order of stay and even before the passing of the order dated 11.2.2009 passed in CWJC No.2065 of 2009 filed by the petitioner disposing of the same. On a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and the order dated 24.3.2009 of the EPF Appellate Tribunal, since the direction is to deposit only 50% of the assessed amount and the operation of the impugned order has been stayed till the disposal of the appeal the effect would be that any amount in excess of 50% of the assessed amount cannot be retained by the respondent EPF authorities. 3 The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the respondent EPF authorities are directed to refund the amount in excess of 50% of the assessed amount recovered by them to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/