The main legal point established is that the Act of 1952 is not applicable to non-government educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid, and therefore, the Pension Scheme of 1955 framed under the Act of 1952 would also not be applicable.

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment shall govern disposal of the aforesaid two appeals preferred by the appellants-the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the common judgment dated 23.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents-pensioners in the aforesaid two appeals. The respondents in two appeals namely Smt. Vijay Baijal & Satya Narayan Khunteta filed writ petitions aggrieved by the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in stopping their pension on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Others (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 268.

2. Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.3205/2010 filed petition on the pleading that he had retired while holding the post of Accountant w.e.f. 31.07.2001 from Adarsh Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School and in view of he being Member of the Pension Scheme of 1995, was granted pension by the Provident Fund Department. His case was that the pension was stopped by the Provident Fund Department from June, 2007 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra).

3. In the other Civil Writ Petition No.9850/2008, petitioner pleaded that she attained the age of superannuation and was member of the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme of 1995. She was granted pension since 2001. Her grievance was also to the same effect that vide an order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Provident Fund Department, her pension was stopped on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra).

4. According to the two writ petitioners (respondents in these appeals), as those petitioners were members of the Provident Fund Scheme of 1995, pension was already granted to them and they were in receipt of pension, their employer Educational Institutions did not prefer any challenge, did not raise any issue with regard to the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'), the judgment of the Supreme Court was not applicable in their case. Further case of the writ petitioners was that in any case in view of the Notification dated 26.10.1993 of the Government of Rajasthan which had granted exemption under Section 17 Sub-Section (1) of the Act of 1952, leaving it open to the concern institutions to seek exemption from the Rajasthan Provident Fund Commissioner, their cases were distinguishable on facts and the Supreme Court decision referred to above could not be applied in rem to all, irrespective of whether or not case of such institution was taken to the Supreme Court.

5. The stand taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was that as the Supreme Court authoritatively pronounced that as regards Non-Government Educational Institutions, who were receiving grant-in-aid and were governed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') which had come into force w.e.f. 01.01.1993, it was held that the said Act was a complete code in itself and it altogether excludes the application of the Act of 1952.

6. Learned Single Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court decision could not be applied in the case of the writ petitioners, who were getting pension under the Scheme of 1955 framed under the Act of 1952 and that the judgment of the Supreme Court was not judgment in rem and further it being a pension scheme, the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in stopping pension and transferring the fund to the State for being dealt with appropriately in accordance with law, was not sustainable.

7. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in these two appeal