IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 837 of 2009 Between: Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (O) Puttur, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub Regional Office , 1/30 Railway Station Road, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents declare the Proceeding No. AP/CDP/Circle:51/Damages/AP/43256/CA Chittoor/2008/1414 dt. 13- 5-2008 for recovery of Rs. 12,48,754/- as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same with a further direction to not to claim any interest and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the proceedings dated 13.5.2008 of the respondent for recovery of Rs.12,48,754/- towards the payment of interest and damages for the belated remittances under Section 7G and 14 B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Organisation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1999, the Government of A.P. has not acceded the request of the AP TRANSCO and its subsidiary company employees who have joined the organization on or after 1.2.1999 to be covered under the provisions of the A.P.Pension Scheme and, therefore, those employees were extended the benefit under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952( for short ‘the Act’). While so, on 13.8.2003 the APSPDCL has taken a decision to implement the provisions of the Act and in the process of taking the policy decision and implementation of the scheme, there occurred some delay and ultimately by proceedings dated 11.11.2006 a sum of Rs.21,27,638/- have been deposited towards EPF subscriptions for the period from March, 2000 onwards. However, the impugned proceedings are issued by the respondent demanding the petitioner to deposit the amount demanded there in on the ground that there was some delay in depositing the amounts. The petitioner was also directed to submit its explanation. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner’s authorized representative appeared before the authorities at Kadapa and explained the reasons for the belated payment and requested to waive the interest and the damages. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no proceedings have been communicated to the petitioner withdrawing the interest and damages and hence this writ petition. Admittedly, as against the impugned orders, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-1 of the Act. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, since the petitioner has already deposited the provident fund subscription, it is permitted to avail the appeal remedy within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any such appeal is filed, there shall be stay of recovery of the demanded amount in question till the disposal of the appeal. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.27.1.2009 msv