Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Executive Engineer, Division- Bilaspur V. Central Board Of Trustees (EPF) Through Employees Provident Fund Organization and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II and Punjab National Bank Through Branch Manager and Bank Of Baroda Through Branch Manager

WPL/30/2026

AI Insights

The case involves the Chhattisgarh Housing Board challenging the orders issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Bilaspur, which directed banks to remit an amount of Rs. 80,46,497/- from the petitioners account. The petitioner contested the validity of these orders through writ petitions, arguing that an appeal and applications for interim relief were pending before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur. The banks, adhering to the communications from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, were poised to act on these orders, which the petitioner argued would render their pending applications infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833049 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL PILLAI; SHARAD MISHRA; SANGEET KUSHWAHA; ANKIT SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHOBHIT MISHRA
• Keywords: Interim relief; Writ petition; EPF and MP Act; Waiver of deposit; Bank compliance
• Section: 11(2); 7A; 8F; 7I

Judgement Text

"1 2026:CGHC:5858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 29 of 2026 Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Executive Engineer, Division- Bilaspur, Office Address- Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, District- Bilaspur, C.G. Pin Code- 495001. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Central Board Of Trustees (Epf) Through Employees Provident Fund Organization, Division Office- Bilaspur, C.G. Pin Code- 495001. 2 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- I I District Office, Ground Floor, B S N L Office Campus, Near Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Punjab National Bank Through Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar Branch, Near Gol Bazar, Bilaspur, C.G. 495001. --- Respondents WPL No. 30 of 2026 Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Executive Engineer, Division - Bilaspur, Office - Address - Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin Code – 495001. ---Petitioner Versus Printed from counselvise.com 2 1 - Central Board Of Trustees (Epf) Through Employees Provident Fund Organization, Division Office - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin Code – 495001. 2 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Ii, District Office, Ground Floor, Bsnl Office Campus, Near Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bank Of Baroda Through Branch Manager, Mungeli Road Branch, Narmada Nagar, Mangla Chowk, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001. --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For Res./Central Board of Trustees (EPF), Bilaspur and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II, Bilaspur : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Res./Punjab National Bank : Mr. Sharad Mishra and Mr. Sangeet Kushwaha, Advocates For Res./Bank of Baroda : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 02/02/2026 1. As identical issue is involved in these writ petitions therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioner herein is challenging the legality, validity, correctness of the order dated 22.01.2026 whereby the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, District Office, Bilaspur respondent No. 2 herein issued impugned order dated 22.01.2026 to the Banks for remitting the alleged amount from the account of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order under Printed from counselvise.com 3 Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “EPF and MP Act, 1952”) was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, district Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby following decision was given on 13.10.2025, which is reproduced below :- “ In view of above I, Debashis Chand Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, District Office, Bilaspur, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 7Aof the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act’ 1952, having gone through the record/papers placed before me, the report dated 31.07.2025 submitted by the Enforcement Officer & submissions made by the establishment in the enquiry, I conclude the hearing, and direct the employer to remit the dues of Rs. 80,46,497/-(Rs. Eighty Lakh Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Seven Only), for the enquiry period 04/2021 to 10/2023 within 15 days to avoid further action under Section 8F of the Act’ 52.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 7I of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, ( M.P.) -cum- Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) (for short “the Appellate Tribunal”), which was registered as Appeal No. 50 of 2025. The said appeal came-up for hearing before the learned Appellate Tribunal on 30.12.2025. As the Presiding Officer of the learned Appellate Tribunal was not available on that day, the matter was again posted on 16.02.2026 for hearing on admission. He also submits that the petitioner has also preferred an application for waiver of the mandated deposit of 75% of the awarded amount in light of Rule 7 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1997. As the appeal could not be heard on that day i.e. on 30.12.2025, taking Printed from counselvise.com 4 advantage of the same, a communication dated 21.01.2026 (AnnexureP/1) was issued to the Punjab National Bank by the respondent No. 2, thereby the Panjab National Bank informing in the following manner:- “Your are also informed that if any amount is due from an employer under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952, the amount so due shall be deemed to be the first charge on assets of the establishment and shall not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be paid in priority to all other debts in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act-52” 5. Further another communication dated 28.01.2026, which is filed alongwith covering memo, by the learned counsel for the petitioner was made to the Punjab National Bank observing thus:- “As such, it is hereby clarified that there is no restriction on recovery proceedings. Accordingly the Bank is directed to comply with the directions of the order u/s 8F of the Act’1952, failing which action under Section 8F(3)(x) will be initiated against the Bank for recovery of the said dues, wherein it is specified that salary of the Bank Manager can also be attached as per Section 29 of the 2nd Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Act 48 and Section 60 of CPC, 1908.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that another communication dated 22.01.2026 was also issued to the Bank of Baroda. He submits that the appeal of the petitioner is yet to be heard on admission on 16.02.2026 (Annxure P-4). If before 16.2.2026, the impugned communication is acted upon by the respective respondents i.e. Punjab National Bank and Bank of Baroda, it would cause great hardship to the petitioner and the applications filed by the petitioner for waiver and interim relief filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal would render infructuous. Thus, he submits that till Printed from counselvise.com 5 16.02.2026, the respondents may be restrained from acting upon impugned communication dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) and 28.01.2026 filed in both the writ petitions. 7. Mr. Pillai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner is required to deposit 75% of the assessed amount in light of Rule 7 of Tribunal Procedure Rule, 1997 and the learned appellate Tribunal is empowered to reduce/waive the 75% of amount looking to the facts & circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned appellate Tribunal has not taken a decision on such applications and, as such, these writ petitions are filed. He further submits that despite of pendency of the statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, this Court may not entertain these writ petitions. He again submits that if any order is passed granting interim protection to the petitioner, this may prejudice the learned Appellate Tribunal in taking the decisions on the applications of the waiver/reduction and grant of interim relief filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/Banks submit that the Banks are bound to adhere to the impugned communication so made. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 10. There is no dispute to the fact that against an order dated 13.10.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 assessing the amount of Rs. 80,46,497/- under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, 1952, the petitioner has preferred an statutory appeal under Section 7I of the EPF and MP Act, 1952. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that applications for waiver/reduction of the said amount and grant of interim relief have also been filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal. The record reflects that the matter Printed from counselvise.com 6 is listed on 16.02.2026 for hearing on admission. If the amount, as assessed is permitted to be withdrawn from the concerned Banks, the purpose of filing the applications for reduction/waiver and interim relief may frustrate. However, the balance has to strike by this Court while granting any order in favour of the petitioner. Thus, taking into consideration the facts situation of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that if the petitioner deposits 25% of the amount assessed by the respondent No. 2 in the order dated 13.10.2025 passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 by 13th of February, 2026, the respondent Banks shall not act upon the communication so made. 11. It is also needless to observe that this order is being passed looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Appellate Tribunal shall not be influenced by this order while deciding the application of the petitioner for reduction/waiver of the 75% of the amount in view of the Rule 7 of Tribunal Procedure Rule, 1997. It will decide the applications filed by the petitioner on its own merit in accordance with law. 12. With this observation/direction these writ petitions are disposed of. 13. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to communicate this order to their respective parties. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami Printed from counselvise.com AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.03 14:45:36 +0530 "