HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 253/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019 Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Shri Bihari Lal Sharma, Resident Of Village Padanga, Post Karkeri, Tehsil Kishangarh (Roopangarh), District Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office- Nidhi Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R. Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal Mr. Bhuvnesh Tiwari for Mr. Sandeep Saxena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/05/2025 1. The instant misc. application has been preferred for recalling the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2024 granting him liberty to file appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’). Counsel submits that the retiral dues of the petitioner have already been determined by the authority, but the same were not (2 of 3) [WMAP-253/2024] released so far, hence, under these circumstances, he has approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition. Counsel submits that no further determination with regard to the calculation of the retiral dues is required to be done by any authority, hence, under these circumstances, the provisions contained under Section 7(A) are not applicable in the present matter and the matter is required to be decided by this Court, by way of passing appropriate orders to the respondents. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that a proper contribution has not been made by M/s Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Ajmer, upon which, correspondence were made and thus, the retiral dues of the petitioner have not been determined and under these circumstances, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of Clause 7-I of the Act of 1952. Counsel submits that since the petitioner has got alternative remedy, the order passed by this Court on 08.07.2024 is not required to be recalled. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Looking to the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition that there is no dispute with regard to determination of the retiral dues of the petitioner and the retiral dues of the petitioner have not been released so far on certain technical counts i.e. a mismatch in the name of father of the petitioner in official record and contribution for specific period, hence, under these circumstances, provisions of Section 7-A are not applicable in the present case. (3 of 3) [WMAP-253/2024] 6. In view of the above, the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by this Court stands recalled. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21855/2019 is restored to its original number. 7. Office to proceed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/85