Item No.57 07.09.2026 Court. No. 9 (Saswata) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION WPA 1956 of 2026 Khayerbari Tea Company Limited & Anr. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Regional Office, Jalpaiguri & Ors. Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai Mr. Mayank Bhandari Mr. Vivek Saha Mr. B. Bandopadhyay Mr. Hrisav Anirban Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai … for the petitioners Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahasaya …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the provident fund authorities to recompute the determination already made, with a further prayer to permit the petitioner to make payment of the admitted provident fund dues in 72 monthly installments. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is a company and also the owner of Nimtijhora Tea Estate situated in the District of Alipurdar. Consequently, the petitioner no. 1 is an ‘employer’ within the meaning of Employees’ Provident 2 Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). According to the petitioners due to financial stringency and other unforeseen financial constraints, the petitioners’ establishment had committed certain defaults in making payment of statutory dues from June 2023 to March 2026. Accordingly, the provident fund authorities by a communication in writing dated 17th August 2026 has identified that a sum of Rs.3,25,69,349/- is due and payable on account of provident fund dues. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners by inviting attention of this Court to a communication dated 18th August 2026 would submit that the petitioner have, however, disputing the aforesaid sum and have sought for reconciliation since according to the petitioners, the dues as computed by the respondents ought to work out to Rs.3,17,27,333.92/-. 5. It is further submitted that in the peculiar facts, the petitioners had requested the respondents to permit the petitioners to liquidate the aforesaid admitted dues by way of installments having regard to the circular dated 11th February 2014. 6. Mr. Roy Mahasaya, learned advocate appearing for the Provident fund authorities submits that the respondents have already by notice dated 31st August 2026 by noting that the petitioners made default in payment of dues for the period from June 2023 to March 3 2026, had directed the petitioners to deposit the said amount failing which proceedings under Section 7A of the said Act would be initiated. In any event, he submits that the petitioners should not be afforded with any relief without the petitioners depositing at least a portion of the admitted dues. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and since at this stage, the petitioners admit that the dues from June 2023 to March 2026 is Rs.3,17,27,333.92/- and since the circular dated 11th February 2014 permits establishments to avail of installments facilities to liquidate their statutory dues under certain conditions and at the same time noting that the default may not have been intentional and may have occurred due to financial stringency, I am of the view that if, the petitioners at the first instance make payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to the respondents within, 7 working days from date, the petitioners shall be entitled to avail the benefit of the above circular dated 11th February 2014 and in the event, the petitioners agree to comply with the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid circular and agrees to make payment of the balance amount in 36 equal monthly installments and also furnish a revolving bank guarantee equivalent to 6 monthly installments, in favour of and to the satisfaction of the respondent no. 2 or such other person that the respondents may require, 4 the petitioners may be permitted to liquidate the dues by way of 36 monthly installments. 8. It is made clear that since there is a marginal dispute in the determination made by the respondents and the admission made by the petitioners, I am of the view that such dispute may be ironed out by the respondents by reconciling the accounts of the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to participate and cooperate in the reconciliation to be made by the respondents. If on the basis of the reconciliation, the figure of the outstanding dues remains unchanged or the same is revised, the particulars of such reconciliation in the form of an order / communication may be made available to the petitioners for the petitioners to make payment of such balance amount by way of an additional installment at the end of the tenure of 36 months as the 37th installment as may be determined. 9. The respondents are directed to issue an appropriate notice on the petitioners calling upon them to appear before the respondents for the purpose of reconciliation. It is also made clear that in the event the petitioners fail to make the payment of the initial deposit or fail to comply with any of the directions noted hereinabove or makes default of any two consecutive installments,, the writ petition shall stand automatically dismissed, and it shall be open to the respondents to take appropriate action without further reference to this Court. 5 On the contrary, if the petitioners comply with the directions, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid period / demand. 10. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)