AADARSH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 25.2.2014, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) As against above, Mrs. Banani Verma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner submits that after the writ petition filed by the father of the petitioner was withdrawn on 11.12.2012, the order dated 28.7.2004 remained unchallenged and in pursuance of the said order a proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner being the legal heir of Late Sudama Pandit. It is submitted that the liability under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is statutory liability and the petitioner being the legal heir of Late Sudama Pandit cannot escape from the said liability.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the sole ground of violation of rules of natural justice. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it is nowhere indicated how the proceeding against the petitioner was initiated. It appears to be an admitted position that before initiating proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 28.7.2004 under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 25.2.2014 issued summon to the petitioner, in response of which the petitioner submitted his representation nonetheless, a show-cause notice for warrant of arrest has been issued on 1.7.2014. No doubt, the liability as determined under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a statutory liability however, it has to be kept in mind that before initiating a proceeding for recovery of the said amount from legal heirs, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners is under duty to issue show-cause notice to the legal heir of the deceased person. The representation submitted by the petitioner before the Recovery Officer, has not been considered and a show-cause notice for warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. I do not find any reason disclosed in order dated 1.7.2014 by which, a show-cause notice for warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The said notice does not record that the petitioner has been trying to conceal himself or he has intended to dispose of the property and therefore, the order dated 1.7.2014 is not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are permitted to proceed against the petitioner afresh, if found necessary, in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.