Disposed

M/S Neelam Security Service v. Employee Provident Fund Organization

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2024WPC/923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh directed the Housing Board to consider the petitioner's pending representation for the release of three months' bill amount within three weeks, noting that the larger amount had already been recovered under the EPFO Act.

What did the court decide?

Directied Housing Board authorities to consider petitions for release of three months' bill amount and decide in accordance with law within three weeks

M/S Neelam Security Service Vs Employee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 923 of 2024

¶5

M/s Neelam Security Service Thruogh Its Proprietor Nilesh Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Shri Sampat Prasad Dwivedi, Aged Abput 29 Years, R/o Nayapara Kirti Nagar, Sirgitti Bilapspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Employee Provident Fund Organization Through Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Head Office Bhikaji Kama Place- 14, New Delhi- 110066

¶8

2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employee Provident Fund Organization, District Office Bilaspur, Ground Floor, B S N L Office Campus, Near Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through- Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶11

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhwaha for respondents no. 1 & 2. Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

03.04.2024

¶16

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his argument for the release of 3 months’ bill amount. He would submit that the petitioner has to pay salaries to its employees. He would further submit that though the bills and vouchers were produced before the Housing Board on 01.02.2024 but till date, the amount has not been released.

¶17

2. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhwaha, counsel appearing on behalf of EPFO would submit that the amount of Rs. 60,10,635/- as per Section 7A of Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has already been recovered.

¶18

3. Mr. Prashant Sahu, counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would endorse the submissions made by Mr. Kachhwaha.

¶19

4. Mr. Sanjay Patel, counsel appearing for the Housing Board would submit that if any

¶20

¶21

application moved by the petitioner for the release of his bills is pending before the Housing Board, the same would be considered strictly in accordance with law and appropriate order shall be passed.

¶22

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶23

6. Taking into consideration the fact that bills and vouchers submitted by the petitioner have not been released by the Housing Board; the amount of Rs. 60,10,635/- has already been recovered from the petitioner according to provisions of Section 7A of Act, 1952; said action on the part of respondent authorities has already been challenged by the petitioner by filing the WPL; however, with regard to bills and vouchers of three months, the authorities of the Housing Board are directed to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law in an objective manner preferably within a period of three weeks.

¶24

7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶26

Ajinkya

M/S Neelam Security Service v. Employee Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Neelam Security Service v. Employee Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpanchala Chaudhary Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalawati Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsevak Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mankunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh