2025:JHHC:22930 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 180 of 2025 Jyoti Kumar Diwakar, aged about 38 years son of Nand Kishor Das through its Propritor M/S Diwakar Engineering Works resident of Qr. No.4038, Sector- 2C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O and P.S- Bokao Steel City, District-Bokaro. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Employees Provident Fund Organization through its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, having its District Office at Near Dy. S.P Office, Sector-1, Ram Mandir, P.O and P.S-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro. 2 The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, having its Office at Near Dy. S.P Office, Sector-1, Ram Mandir, P.O and P.S- Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate -------- Order No. 4/Dated: 7th August 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. That by way of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions upon the respondents and particularly, respondent No. 2 to stay the recovery proceeding against the petitioner and to withdraw notice through email dated 22.10.2024 for recovery contained in letter bearing No. RRC No. 433(2022-23) and 627(2022-23) Dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure-1) by which a recovery order has been issued against the petitioner directing him to pay Rs. 14,77,185/- despite the fact that the petitioner has already filed statutory Appeal against the order of determination of dues under section 7A of Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 [ EPF & MP Act, 1952 ] and under section 14 B & 7Q of EPF & MP Act, 1952 which has been registered as EPFAT 19 of 2024 and which is pending in the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad. AND For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents to await the decision of the Appellate Authority under section 7-1 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 before rushing ahead and recovering the entire alleged dues particularly when the officer of Appellate Authority, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad is vacant. 2025:JHHC:22930 2 AND/ For issuance of any other writ, order or direction that may be incidental to or connected with any or more of the reliefs sought for hereinabove or for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was no Presiding Officer in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad; appeal of the petitioner is still pending. He submits that recently he came to know that one Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh has been appointed as In-charge Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as CGIT No.2, Dhanbad). As such, learned counsel fairly submits that a direction may be issued to the In-charge Presiding Officer to dispose of the appeal as early as possible because the recovery proceeding is in process. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that one person has been made In-charge of CGIT No.2, Dhanbad as such a direction may be issued to the Tribunal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the prayer made in this writ application and also the fact that Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar has assumed the additional charge of Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.2, Dhanbad w.e.f. 14.07.2025 coupled with the fact that Respondent no.2 has initiated the recovery proceeding against the Petitioner in spite of pendency of the appeal; interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the In-charge Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad to hear the case on merit or at least hear the stay application which has already been filed by the petitioner for the reason that during pendency of the appeal, the recovery proceeding has already been initiated by Respondent No.2. Ordered accordingly. 5. It is clarified that Annexure-1 to the writ application shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner shall 2025:JHHC:22930 3 approach the concerned Court and the concerned Court shall hear the case as stated hereinabove. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit