Patna High Court - Orders
Veerayatan, Rajgir vs The Union Of India & Anr on 9 July, 2012
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6842 of 2010
======================================================
Veerayatan Rajgir,District Nalanda,Through Its Manager Anjani Kumar
S/O Late Hiralal.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner Bihar, Patna. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Regional Office, 'R' Block, Road-6,Patna-800001
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 'R' Block, Road-6,
Patna-800001
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bhupendra Kr. Verma, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA
PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 09-07-2012The petitioner has questioned the validity of notice dated 19.02.2010 and the proceeding arising there from, whereby the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna exercising power under Section 7 A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has initiated quasi- judicial proceeding for determining the Provident Fund contribution from the period March 1972 to 01.04.2008.
2. The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is a non-profit making, socio religious institution situated at Rajgir in the District of Nalanda (Bihar). According to the petitioner, the establishment has adopted 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.6842 of 2010 (7) dt.09-07-2012 2/5 a fine interpretation of the Code of conduct as established in Jain Scriptures and has created a unique example of humanitarian service. It is the first and only Jain institution in the State where Sadhvi Vrinds are working personally for upliftment of the society. The establishment is abode of service and spirituality and it is symbol of Seva Siksha, Sadhana, Devotion, Harmony, and Dedication. The establishment runs a college and a hospital, which is separately coded.
3. In the year 1996, a proceeding under Section 7 A of the Act was initiated against the petitioner's establishment for deciding the issue of applicability of the Act and after a detailed enquiry, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna held that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 including Section 7 A would not be applicable to the petitioner's institution. The Provident Fund Department accepted the order and did not act against the petitioner's establishment vis-à-vis the P.F. Act. The issue relating to applicability had attained judicial finality.
4. After 12 years a complaint was made (not by any employee) that the petitioner is not complying with the provisions of the Provident Fund Act. The Enforcement Officer being oblivious of the previous order dated 22.07.1996 under Section 7- 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.6842 of 2010 (7) dt.09-07-2012 3/5 A of the Act, started an enquiry in respect of applicability of the Act. The petitioner brought the earlier order dated 22.07.1996 to the notice of the officer wherein it was held that the P. F. Act is not applicable to the institution. Nonetheless, the petitioner being a benevolent institution established with purpose of social service, itself voluntarily agreed for applying provisions of the Act, w.e.f. 01.04.2008. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner after considering the entire matters vide order dated 25.11.2008 covered the petitioner's establishment with effect from 01.04.2008. Based on the coverage order, the petitioner continued to pay the provident fund contributions as per the provisions of the Act.
5. Again another complaint has been made by a functionary of the so-called Veerayatan Karamchari Sangh for applying the Act with effect from 1993. A show-cause was asked on 04.12.2009. The petitioner appeared and submitted his reply on 29.12.2009 bringing the earlier facts and order of coverage of the petitioner to the notice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who overlooking all earlier orders, initiated a proceeding under Section 7 A of the Act vide order dated 19.02.2010 for the period starting from March 1972 to 01.04.2008, which is impugned in this writ application.
6. The petitioner submits that the Regional Provident 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.6842 of 2010 (7) dt.09-07-2012 4/5 Fund Commissioner cannot sit in appeal on the earlier quasi- judicial orders passed by his predecessors having concurrent jurisdiction. It has already been finally decided that Provident Fund Act would apply only w.e.f. 01.04.2008. Such order could be challenged only before a superior court.
7. Counsel for the Provident Fund submits that the petitioner can make such submissions before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as back on 22.07.1996, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner while acting under Section 7 A of the Act held that the Act would not be applicable to the petitioner's institution. Again on 25.11.1998 a proceeding under Section 7 A was commenced on receipt of a complaint. In the aforesaid proceeding on voluntary concession of the petitioner, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner made the Act applicable to the institution with effect from 01.04.2008 making the coverage final from the said date. Again a complaint was made on 20.10.2009 and the petitioner was show-caused on 04.12.2009 to which the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 29.12.2009.
9. Ignoring the show cause reply and legal position that an officer of a competent jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.6842 of 2010 (7) dt.09-07-2012 5/5 against the quasi-judicial orders of his predecessors enjoying concurrent jurisdiction, the respondent no.2 again initiated a proceeding under Section 7 A of the Act vide order dated 19.02.2010. The Provident Fund Act does not confer such jurisdiction on the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner / Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to sit in appeal on its own order by which the period of coverage was finally decided twice once in 1996 and the other on 25.11.2008. The department could have moved the higher authority against the earlier orders passed under Section 7 A of the Act. An officer having concurrent jurisdiction cannot sit in quasi-judicial proceeding over orders passed by his predecessors on same material, without stating sufficient reasons for so interfering.
10. In this view of the matter, this application succeeds and the impugned order initiating a proceeding under Section 7 A of the Act is quashed.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Uday/-