1 2025:CGHC:6371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 50 of 2022 1 - M/s Bundelas Securitas And Consultants Private Limited Through Manager, Hig 23, Arya Colony, Tifra, P.S. Tifra, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Employee Provident Fund Organization Through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Block- D, I.G.V. Parishar Pandri Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may be please to call record from respondent in respect of case of petitioner. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure – P/1). Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to recalculate the damages under section 14B, 7Q of the Act. 1952 confining the same to the amount of the interest payable. 10.4 Any other relief which Hon'ble Court may think fit in the circumstances of case.” 2. Mr. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by two separate orders dated 18.04.2022, the respondent department has assessed the amount to the tune of Rs.47,47,829/- under Sections 7Q and 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’). He would further submit that vide order dated 03.05.2023, this Court permitted the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- with the EPF department on the 10th day of every month in compliance with the order passed by the respondent authority. He would contend that vide order dated 02.05.2024, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was modified to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It is also contended by Mr. Kale that the petitioner is making regular payments to the respondent authority. It is further contended that the remaining amount will be paid by the petitioner in the same manner as per the directions issued earlier. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the outstanding amount against Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 has already been paid. He would further submit that the balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner as per the direction issued earlier. 3 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make payment of the balance amount in the same manner as per the direction issued earlier. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha