The main legal point established in the judgment is that the enactment of 1989 prevailed over the Central Act of 1952, and Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993 was declared ultra vires to the statutory provisions of the enactment of 1989.

1. :- The instant writ petitions are filed, questioning the order dated 14.8.1997, regarding deposit of contributory provident fund, with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, being invalid to the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the enactment of 1989") and the Rules framed by State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 43 of the said enactment, known as the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993) (hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1993").

2. In all these petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, these petitions deserve to be disposed of by a common order, treating SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1085/2000 as the leading case.

3. In all these petitions, interpretation of Sections 5, 7(5), 10, 12 14, 16(2) and 43 of the enactment of 1989; and Rule 2(r) and (s) Rule 68 to 81 and Rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, and Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1952"), read with Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, with reference to Item No. 24 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, is involved. In all these petitions, validity of order dated 14.8.1997 can be disposed of without delineating the fats of each case. As the question involved in these petitions, will have a very wide ramification, therefore, before dealing with the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be expedient to give a synopsis of the various provisions of Acts and Rules, referred during the course of arguments, at the Bar.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, invited my attention to Sub-section (2) of the Section 16 of the enactment of 1989, which provides that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees, in such manner and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on the deposited amount, at such rate, as may be prescribed from time to time. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Prahlad Singh, also invited my attention to Chapter-VIII of the Rules of 1993, wherein, a complete scheme of contributory provident fund, is prescribed by State Government, in exercise of its power, conferred under Section 43 of the enactment of 1989.

5. Under Rule-68 of the Rules of 1993, it is provided that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees. Sub-rule (5) of the said Rules, further provides that all accumulated, current or future accretions to the provident fund amount of the employees and contributions of the institution shall be deposited in the interest bearing personal deposit account, by the institution in Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, within three days of the drawal of salary.

6. Indisputably, some of the petitioner-institutions before this Court had been given personal deposit account numbers and they were continuously depositing contributory provident funds in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, as envisaged under the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993. But, the aforesaid deposits have been interrupted by the impugned order dated 14.8.1997, Annexure-10 to the leading writ petition, whereby, contributory provident fund accounts, have been transferred from the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, to the account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Some educational institutions, where twenty or more than twenty employees were employed, were compelled to deposit contributory provident fund, in the office of the respondent No. 5 with which they are aggrieved.

7. The learned Advocate General, Shri S.M. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4, at the very outset, candidly invited my attention to the mandatory provisions, envisaged under Section 16(1)(b) of