IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10855 of 2009 The Bihar State Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Limited through its, Secretary, Anil Kumar Chaudhary, son of late Sachindanand Chowdhary having its head office at “Malayanil” Bhawan, Budha Colony, Patna – 800 001. Versus 1. The Employees’ Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner, having its Regional office at Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, R-Block, Road No.6, Patna-800001. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, having its Regional Office at Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, R-Block, Road No.6, Patna- 800001. 3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ( C ), Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, having its Regional Office at Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, R-Block, Road No.6, Patna-800001. 4. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi. 5. The Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi. 6. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha. For Provident Fund: Mr. R S Pradhan, Sr. Advocate & Rajeev Lochan. For Union of India: Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey For the State of Bihar: Dr. G P Yadav, AC to AAG 6. ----- 02. 28.08.2009 It is a very limited prayer which has been made by the counsel for the petitioner, which is an organization set up by the State of Bihar to extend benefit to the scheduled caste persons by extending loan and other help to enable them to stand on their feet. It is not a profit making organization but a society set up to extend the benefit - 2 - to lowliest of the lowest. The origin of the present dispute is an assessment order which came to be passed by the respondent Employees’ Provident Fund Organization where certain liabilities came to be fixed by virtue of an order dated 03.03.2003. The assessment order passed against the petitioner became the subject matter of challenge in an appeal filed before the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal. In terms of the requirement of law while filing such an appeal under section 7-O, pre-condition for deposit of 75 per cent of the assessed amount is provided. On a prayer made on behalf of the petitioner the Tribunal reduced the above amount to 40 percent. The order in this regard is dated 7.8.2007. But something more has happened in between. To recover the assessed amount of provident fund dues the respondents attached the bank account of the petitioner operating in the Indian Bank, Main Branch, Gandhi Maidan, Patna and recovered a sum of Rs.29,76,488/-. The sum essence is that in terms of Tribunal’s direction the petitioner has deposited 40 per cent of the assessed amount as well as the entire assessed amount has also been recovered by the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that respondents have illegally therefore recovered the entire amount and are not refunding the same. Since 40 per cent of the assessed amount has already been separately deposited by the petitioner with the respondents, they want clean refund of Rs.29, 76, 488/- pending final adjudication by - 3 - the Tribunal. Learned counsel representing the respondents informs the Court that the attachment order had to be carried out in terms of the provision of law. The Tribunal’s order has been passed subsequently and because of the said confusion they have also approached the Tribunal seeking clarification of the order but learned counsel does not dispute the fact that as of today they have the full recovered amount with them along with 40 per cent of the assessed amount deposited by the petitioner. In view of the above accepted position irrespective of the final decision in the appeal, looking at the organization which is involved in the present dispute, the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna is hereby directed to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs.29, 76, 488/- within a period of two weeks from today. Forty per cent of the assessed amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondents will be retained by them till a final decision is rendered by the appellate authority which is the Tribunal where the issue is pending. The writ application is allowed with above direction. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Advocate for communication. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)