1 2026:CGHC:14044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 259 of 2026 1 - Central Board Of Trustees Epfo Through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii, Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Raipur (C.G.) Block-D, Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492004 ... Applicant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Through General Manager (Administration) Head Office, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, T.P. Nagar Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Kachhari Chowk, Champa Road, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Uma Ahirwar W/o Late Mangal Ram Ahirwar Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Bharti Nagar, Near Income Tax Office, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, an application seeking leave of this Court to file petition, applictions, rejoinder etc., supported by an affidavit executed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Bilaspur (C.G.), I.A. No. 02 of 2026, an application seeking permission to prosecute the case in the name of Central Board of Trustees, EPFO through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Raipur (C.G.) and I.A. No. 03 of 2026, an application seeking leave of this Court to implead the respondent No. 1 as Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank instead of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank as also respondent No. 2 and 3 as Regional Managers of Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank instead of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank. 2. On due consideration of the reasons mentioned therein, I.A. Nos. 01, 02 and 03 are allowed and disposed off accordingly. 3. The present Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) has been filed by the applicant–Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund, seeking modification of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 9224 of 2023 (Smt. Uma Ahirwar vs. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Others). 4. The writ petition was preferred by respondent No. 4 herein 3 seeking, inter alia, direction for payment of provident fund amount and other consequential benefits arising out of the service of her deceased husband, who died while in service on 28.09.2010. 5. This Court, vide order dated 14.10.2025, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-Bank to examine the claim of the petitioner and ensure disbursement of admissible amounts, including provident fund of Rs. 3,26,040/-, within a period of six weeks. Subsequently, a writ appeal being W.A. No. 902 of 2025 was preferred by the Bank, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge. The present MCC has thereafter been filed by the applicant on the ground that the direction contained in paragraph 11 of the order dated 14.10.2025 requires modification, inasmuch as under the statutory scheme, the provident fund amount is not disbursed by the Bank directly, but through the Employees Provident Fund Organization upon processing of claim by the competent authority. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a statutory body constituted under Section 5A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and is responsible for administration of the Provident Fund Scheme. It is further submitted that as per Para 72(5) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, the role of the employer is limited to forwarding the duly attested claim application to the competent authority, i.e., the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It is contended that the direction issued by this Court in paragraph 11 4 of the order dated 14.10.2025, directing the Bank to disburse the provident fund amount, does not align with the statutory mechanism, as the actual disbursement is made by the EPF authorities upon receipt and processing of the claim. Therefore, it is prayed that the said order be modified to clarify that the Bank shall forward the claim application, and the disbursement shall be made by the EPF Organization through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the order dated 14.10.2025 was passed to ensure timely disbursement of dues to the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased employee. It is submitted that the petitioner should not be made to suffer on account of procedural formalities between the employer and the EPF authorities. However, it is fairly conceded that the statutory scheme provides for disbursement of provident fund through the EPF Organization upon submission and processing of the claim. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From a perusal of the order dated 14.10.2025, it is evident that this Court directed the respondent-Bank to ensure disbursement of the provident fund amount to the petitioner within a stipulated time. However, upon consideration of the statutory provisions, particularly Para 72(5) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, it emerges that the employer is required to forward 5 the claim application, whereas the actual disbursement is to be made by the Employees Provident Fund Organization through the competent authority. Thus, the direction requiring the Bank to disburse the provident fund amount requires clarification to bring it in consonance with the statutory framework governing such disbursement. It is also not in dispute that the object of the earlier order was to ensure expeditious release of the dues to the petitioner, and the same can be achieved by appropriately modifying the direction. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the modification sought by the applicant deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the respondent – Gramin Bank is directed to forward the claim application of respondent No. 4 - Smt. Uma Ahirwar to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Regional Office, Raipur and the RPFC, Regional Office, Raipur shall take necessary steps for disbursement of amount payable to the respondent No. 4 within a period of six weeks’. 12. The order dated 14.10.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 9224 of 2023 is modified to the aforesaid extent, and it shall be read conjointly with the original order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge