ORDER : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. Although, the matters come up on applications filed by the respondents seeking vacation of ex parte interim order but, on the joint request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petitions were heard finally at this stage on merit. 2. Since, all these writ petitions involve common facts and common questions of law, the same are being heard and decided together. 3. In all these writ petitions, the question involved is liability of the petitioner-Board which is a non-commercial entity governed by the State of Rajasthan and formulated for uplifting the educational standard in the remote areas, to pay the penal damages under Section 14(B) and interest under Section 7-Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity "the Act of 1952"). Learned counsels submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated 07.08.2019 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1913/2016, Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and other connected matters involving identical controversy, disposed of the writ petitions reducing the penal damages under Section 14(B) of the Act of 1952 in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of K. Streetlite Electric Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, (2001) 4 SCC 449 , to the extent of 50% maintaining the remaining part of the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. They submit that these writ petitions may also be disposed of with similar directions. 4. Although, learned counsel for the respondent did not agree with the proposition but, could not dispute that the judgment dated 07.08.2019 was rendered in identical facts and circumstances and that the department has accepted the aforesaid judgment and did not appeal against the same. 5. In case of Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board (supra), this Court has directed as under:- "7. Although, learned counsel for the respondent did not agree with the proposition but, could not dispute that the judgment dated 07.08.2019 was rendered in identical facts and circumstances and that the department has accepted the aforesaid judgment and did not appeal against the same. 5. In case of Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board (supra), this Court has directed as under:- "7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that in ordinary circumstances, this Court ought not to interfere in the activation of the welfare legislation which is the Act of 1952 in this case, however, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case where the petitioner-Board is a noncommercial organization meant for welfare of the backward tribal areas and having no income of its own and also that it is fully owned, controlled and administered by the State Government and also looking to the fact that the liability under Section 7-A and 7-Q of the Act of 1952 has already been discharged by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to make limited intervention in the impugned order by reducing the damages awarded under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952 in terms of the precedent law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Streetlite Electric Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana (supra) holding that the respondents shall be entitled to recover 50% of the damages from the petitioner. 8. The writ petitions are disposed of in the terms as indicated above. All the pending applications including the stay applications in the respective writ petitions shall also stands disposed of." 6. Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties and the material on record and since, the entire controversy involved herein is identical as in the case of Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board (supra) decided by this Court vide judgment dated 07.08.2019, these writ petitions are also disposed of with the directions issued therein. However, it has been brought to notice of the Court that in some of the matters, entire liability stands satisfied. In such cases, the petitioner would not be entitled for any refund of the penal damages. However, it has been brought to notice of the Court that in some of the matters, entire liability stands satisfied. In such cases, the petitioner would not be entitled for any refund of the penal damages. In cases where liability under Section 7-Q of the Act of 1952 has not been discharged, the petitioners would be entitled to reduction to 50% of the penal damages under Section 14(B) of the Act of 1952 only if they discharge the same within three months from today. 7. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.