1 2025:CGHC:33556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 709 of 2025 1. Regional Provident Commissioner Ii (Damages-I) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Block D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492004 2. Area Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Block D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur- Chhattisgarh 492004 3. Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Block D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492004 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jyoti Structures Limited Through Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan, Plot No. 1037/1046, Gogaon, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 2. State Bank Of India, Revenue Division, Bilaspur, P.B. 29/61, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant No. 1 : Mr. Devashish Tiwari, Advocate For Non-applicant No. 2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.17 18:27:25 +0530 2 17/07/2025 1. By way of the instant MCC, the applicants seek modification in the order dated 29.04.2025, passed in WPL No. 88 of 2025 by this Court. 2. Upon perusal of the order dated 29.04.2025, it is apparent that there are typographical errors in para-1 and para-5 3. In para-1, the phrase “order impugned passed under Section 7Q” was inadvertently used instead of “notice issued under Section 8F”. Similarly, in para-5, the phrase “Section 8(5)” was inadvertently used instead of “Section 8F”. 4. In the light of aforementioned typographical errors, the paras 1 and 5 of the order dated 29.04.2025, passed in WPL No. 88 of 2025 shall be replaced by the following :- PARA 1 :- “ At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the notice issued under Section 8F of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been withdrawn by the concerned authority vide order dated 28.04.2025 and the petitioner has been communicated in this regard on the same date. ” PARA 5 :- “ In view of the above, notice issued under Section 8F of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 goes. ” 3 5. It is made clear that rest of the terms and conditions of the original order shall remain intact. 6. With these modifications, the instant MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya