The main legal point established in the judgment is that any alteration or modification adversely affecting the employees cannot be made retrospectively, and no recovery could have been made from the retired employees on the strength of the new rules.

Ravi Ranjan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as the respondent no. 4.

2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as the respondent no. 4.

3. Though originally the petitioners have sought quashing of the proposal no. 3 which is the decision taken by the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Employee Provident Fund Trust Committee, as contained in Annexure 1, and the subsequent order passed by the Managing Director, BISCOMAUN (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Annexure 3, directing for realisation of amount which have been given in excess to the retired employees after being calculated as per the amended Rules. It appears that the BISCOMAUN Employees Provident Fund Trust has taken a decision under proposal no. 3 regarding the loan disbursed under the earlier rules that the amount of loan taken by the employees from the provident fund account would be deducted from the date the loan was sanctioned and compound interest shall be charged upon the loan amount from that date itself. This rule has been made applicable to those employees also who had already got benefits under the earlier existing rule and subsequently had retired including the petitioners.

4. It appears that the respondent no. 4 has also issued notice dated 12.10.2011, as contained in Annexure 6, upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to show cause as to why recommendation for cancellation of exemption granted to the concerned authority should not be taken by it. While doing so the authority concerned has clearly disclosed its opinion that the new amendment would not have been made applicable without the approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the same cannot be made effective with retrospective date. It has also been disclosed in the aforesaid notice that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not followed the law laid down by this court regarding payment of compound interest and have deducted the same in contravention of that.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the Rule 10(a), which was governing the field known as BISCOMAUN Employees Provident Fund Rules, clearly lays down that no alteration, repeal or addition in the Rules which may affect the employees adversely shall have a retrospective effect. That apart the revise condition for grant of exemption under Section 17 of the Employees? Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 also lays down at Clause 11 that no amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

6. Upon the consideration of rival contention, it appears that the petitioners are only affected by the part of the resolution as contained in Annexure-1 as well as the letter contained in Annexure-3 whereby the calculation of the Provident Fund amount has been reopened and again made under the new rules which have been framed under proposal no.3 by the Trustee Committee and as a result a direction has been given for recovery of the excess amount which has been paid to them.

7. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the earlier orders of this Court appended with the pleadings of the parties and also the notice as well as decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as contained in Annexures-5 and 6, there is no difficulty in holding that the re-calculation made as per the amended Rule 10(a) with respect to the retired employees of the BISCOMAUN including the petitioners would be bad in law inasmuch as the BISCOMAUN Provident Fund Rules clearly lays down that any alteration or modification adversely affecting the employees cannot be made retrospectively. That apart, it has also been held by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the compound interest cannot be charged from the loan amount which has been taken by the employees from their respective provident fund account. Therefore, it is held t