Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/8520/2020 of HARI PUBLIC HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARION THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 8520 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
HARI PUBLIC HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, 85 SUNDER NAGAREXTENSION, SUKHLIYA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PRATEEK PATWARDHAN, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II,ADDRESS 7TH FLOOR IDA BUILDING 7, RACE COURSEROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT).
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 17.10.2019passed by the CGIT, Jabalpur, petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of theamount of Rs. 26,76,254/- i.e. Rs. 13,38,127/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 50% amount wasdeposited by the petitioner and the remaining was recovered from thepetitioner. The order of recovery was challenged before this Court in thepresent petition. However, in compliance of the interim order dated 25.06.2020passed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited the outstanding 50% of themain amount. Therefore, this petition has rendered infructuous. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the conditional order grantedby the CGIT for depositing of the 50% amount may be continued since thepetitioner has already deposited the remaining amount in the light of the interimorder passed by this Court on 25.06.2020.
3. This factual position has not be disputed by the learned counsel forthe respondent.
4. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the interim order passed by the CGIT, Jabalpur vide order dated 17.10.2019 in CGIT/LC/EPFA/52/2019shall continue unless the same is vacated by the CGIT.
5. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
vidya
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)JUDGE