*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 2448/1996

DAULAT RAM COLLEGE

..... Petitioner

Represented by: Mr. M.M.Kalra, Advocate with

Mr. Kunal Kalra and Ms. Sushma

Sachdeva, Advocates

versus

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS.

..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate

with

Mr.

Rajat

Manchanda,

Advocate for R1.

Mr. M.M.Singh, Advocate with

Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate for R2.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate

with Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Advocate

for UGC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner („Commissioner‟, in short)

under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Act, 1952 („Act‟, in short) which was communicated to the petitioner-

College vide covering letter dated May 27, 1995, whereby the

Commissioner was of the view that the petitioner-College having not

been set up under any enactment, does not satisfy the criteria for

exclusion laid down under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore, the

2014:DHC:2055

Act is applicable to the petitioner-College.

2. The short question which arises in this writ petition is whether the

petitioner-College being an affiliated College of Delhi University would

be excluded in terms of Section 16(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Some of the relevant facts are that the Delhi University was

established under Delhi University Act, 1922, a Central Act („DU Act‟,

in short). The petitioner, an affiliated College of the Delhi University

was started under the name of “Pramila College” in the year 1960. The

name of the petitioner-College was changed from “Pramila College” to

Daulat Ram College. It is the case of the petitioner that the University of

Delhi is a body incorporated under the DU Act. The DU Act defines a

„College‟ which includes an affiliated and a constituent College. The

teachers imparting instructions in a college and recognized by the

University are also the teachers of University of Delhi.

4. The petitioner states that it is affiliated to the Delhi University and

is imparting education to the girls upto Post-Graduation. It is one of the

constituent colleges of the University. The petitioner-College is bound

to follow the provisions of the DU Act and the Statutes and the

Ordinances framed thereunder. Section 46 of the DU Act reads as under:

2014:DHC:2055

Provident Funds Act”.

5. Section 28 of the DU Act enumerates matters which can be

provided for by the Statutes. Two such matters being:

Officers, Teachers and other employees of the University”

University and the withdrawal of such privileges”.

6. Statute 30 of the Statutes of the University prescribes conditions

on the basis of which a college may be admitted to the privileges of the

University. One of the conditions being the following:

Council”.

7. Yet another condition being the following:

2014:DHC:2055

8. It is the stand of the petitioner, like any other College, whether

affiliated or constituent of the University is in receipt of maintenance

grant to the extent of 95% grant from the University Grants Commission.

The petitioner is bound to comply with the „Conditions of Government

Grant to Colleges‟, which included that „every governing body shall

maintain a Provident Fund for the benefit of members of its teaching

staff, in accordance with rules prescribed by the Government of India‟.

9. Clause 10 of Ordinance XVIII of the Ordinances of the University

reads as follows:

10. It is further the case of the petitioner-College that under the Rules

and Regulations of the petitioner-College Society, the governing body

shall establish and maintain a Provident Fund for the members of the

College Staff in accordance with Ordinance XVIII(10) and such other

rules as may be approved by the Government of India. It is also stated