1 2025:CGHC:47666 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 949 of 2025  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Raipur Chhattisgarh, Block-D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandari Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492004 ... Applicant(s) versus  M/s Pawan Kumar Agrawal Through - Partner Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal, Age About 58 Years, C/o Vijush Kumar Agrawal, Main Road Naila, Ward No. 05, Agrasen Marg, Naila Police Station- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 17/09/2025 1) The instant application has been preferred by the applicant for modification/ correction of order passed by this Court in WPL No. 63 of 2023 dated 19.03.2025. 2) Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that this Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order at para – 3 of the order dated 19.03.2025 so as to mean that Section 14B and 7Q are not interdependent and in no way 2 any order passed by the learned Tribunal in an appeal questioning the order passed under Section 14B would affect any order passed under Section 7Q of The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter to be referred to as “The Act, 1952”]. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant opposes. 4) Heard. 5) Perusal of the record of writ petition would indicate that the employer defaulted on paying contributions, thereby failing to fulfill his statutory obligations to the Provident Fund, therefore an order was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Raipur under the provisions of Section 14B of The Act, 1952 to recover penal damages. The said order has been challenged by the employer by filing an appeal. A separate order was passed under the provisions of Section 7Q of The Act, 1952 which deals with levy of interest on due amounts. This Court in its order dated 19.03.2025, recorded the contention made by Mr. Dwivedi to the extent that if any order is passed by the appellate authority in favor of petitioner therein, the order passed under Section 7Q would automatically become redundant. 6) At this stage, Mr. Dwivedi submits that such contention was not made by him and the orders passed under Sections 14B and 7Q are not interdependent. He further contends that any order passed 3 by the appellate authority would not absolve the liability to make payment of interest. He prays to modify the last three lines of para 3 of order dated 19.03.2025. 7) Evidently, the order impugned was passed in open Court in presence of the parties ; Mr, Dwivedi marked his presence for respondents No. 2 and 3 therein and submission made by him has been recorded verbatim. Further, the part of order in which modification is being sought by Mr. Dwivedi was not an observation made by this Court, rather it was the contention made by Mr. Dwivedi himself. The writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner therein/ employer to prefer an appeal against the order passed under Section 14B of The Act, 1952 before the appellate authority. 8) Also, in the order dated 19.03.2025, this Court has observed that “It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” The issue as to whether the orders passed under Sections 14B and 7Q are interdependent or not is to be decided by the competent authority. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any substance in this application and same is hereby rejected. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a