IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/77/2026 IA No.CAN/1/2026 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner –II and Another vs The Chief Engineer, Nirman Bhawan and another Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad Mr. V.D.Sivabalan … for the appellants Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondents July 27, 2026 [SR] Item No.73 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA/333/2025. 2. The subject matter of challenge before the Single Bench was a demand under section 7Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 raised by the RPFC-II against the Chief Engineer, Andaman and Nicobar Islands for workmen of 18 Divisions under it. 3. A notice under section 7Q was issued by the appellants for delayed payment of liability under section 7A of the Act of 1952. The demand under section 7A issued by the respondents came to be challenged before this Court by the Labour Union in WPA/194/2021. A single bench of this Court had passed certain orders, as to when the demand under section 7A would be effective from. This Court’s order came to be interfered with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.11.2023 passed in 2 MAT/17/2023. The Division Bench clarified that the liability under section 7A would have to be met by the employer namely the Administration from date which the 18 units under the Administration came under the purview of EPF Act. It was also directed that in the event the payment is made by the appellant employer therein within two months thereof no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner. 4. The Single Bench in the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 applied the aforesaid, “no coercive measure order”, even to the demand under section 7Q made by the EPF authorities. i.e. interest on delayed payment of PF. 5. At first glance, the order of the Single Bench appears to be justified as a liability under section 7Q towards interest for delayed payment would accrue only upon infraction of section 7A of the Act of 1952. 6. Extension of time by a Division Bench of this Court and payment made by the Administration within such time would obviously extinguish all consequences of delayed payment. Section 7Q would not be applicable or attracted by reason of the extension to make payment under section 7A by the order dated 22.11.2023 of Division Bench (supra). 7. There is, however, substance in the submission of Mr. Prasad appearing for the EPF authority that irrespective of any benefit or leverage granted to an employer by a Court of law, its liability under section 6 of the Act of 1952 to pay interest to the employees for delayed payment of PF, cannot be extinguished. 3 The EPF in fact has claimed to have paid from each employee simple interest on delayed payment of PF at the rate of 10% per annum. Payment to several other employees is still pending. 8. It appears to this Court that neither the appellant nor the employer respondent had brought to the notice of the Division Bench in MAT/17/2023 or the Single Bench in WPA/333/2025, the liability of the PF authority under Section 6 of the Act of 1952. 9. The liability of EPF authorities under section 6 which is a statutory obligation and cannot be avoided. Appropriate submission ought to have been made before the Coordinate Bench with regard to the liability of the EPF towards its members, under section 6 of the Act of 1952. 10. In that view of the matter this Court is of the view that the subject appeal being MAT/77/2026 can be disposed of directing the EPF authorities is to give a detailed calculation to the respondent-Administration of the percentage and quantum of interest paid under section 6 of the Act of 1952 to the employees concerned till date. The calculation shall also include all interest liability under section 6 payable by the EPF authority to the employees who have not yet been paid the arrears of the PF dues. 11. Let such calculation be communicated within a period of one month from date. The A & N Administration shall refund and pay the EPF authorities the quantum of interest that has been calculated and communicated to them. Since both the 4 appellants and the respondents are instrumentalities under the Central Government, it is expected that the calculation is appropriately checked and re-checked before communication to the Administration. 12. The Administration shall be entitled to raise any dispute or point out error in such calculation to the EPF authorities. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a month on receipt of calculation from the EPF authorities by the Administration. 13. The Administration shall thereafter make payment of the refundable amount as indicated hereinabove to the EPF authorities within a period of one month thereafter. The EPFO shall thereafter make payment to the employees concerned within a period of 15 days thereafter. 14. In the event the time lines as indicated above are complied with, the direction against coercive measures against the respondent employer shall continue for a further period of three months. 15. With the above observations and directions, MAT/77/2026 stands disposed of. CAN/1/2026 shall accordingly stand disposed of. 16. Any frozen accounts of the Administration by the EPF authorities shall be unfrozen within a period of seven days. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J. )