IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1772 of 2008 1.WOODSTOCK SCHOOL, Jail Road, Charitarvan, P.O. and P.S. Town Buxar District Buxar, Bihar through its Principal Rajay Jaiswal son of Dr.Ramji Prasad Jaiswal 2.Rajay Jaiswal son of Dr.Ramji Prasad Jaiswal, Principal Woodstock School, P.O. & P.S. Town Buxar, District Buxar------------------------------petitioners Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, ‘R’ Block, Road No.6, Patna 800001 2.Shri S.K.Nayak son of not known to the petitioners, Presentloy posted as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bihar, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, ‘R’ Block, Road No.6,Patna 800001 3.Shri Sunil Kumar Deb son of not known to the petitioners Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, ‘R’ Block, Road No.6, Patna 800001 4.Shri Ajay Kumar son of not known, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, ‘R’ Block Road No.6, Patna 800001---------------------opp.parties ----------- For the petitioners :Mr.Alok Kr.Sinha,Advocate For the RPFC :M/S R.S.Pradhan,Sr.Advocate Dheeraj Kumar Roy,Advocate ----- 2. 21.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The petitioners claim wilful violation of the order dated 20.3.2006 passed by this Court in the writ petition. By the aforesaid order this Court had remitted back the matter to the Provident Fund Commissioner with a direction, inter alia, to reconsider imposition of damages in replacement of Annexure-1 in the background of 2 the case mentioned in the earlier part of the order. The said background was that for the period May, 1999 to November, 2000 it was held by an order passed on 5.6.2002 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the petitioner was not at default in making delay in depositing the provident fund dues. This Court, accordingly, observed in the order under contempt that if that be the finding, then by the impugned order the petitioner could not be directed to pay damages for the said period inasmuch as statutory damages too is payable only when there is a breach of an obligation and if the breach is not attributable to the person concerned he cannot be saddled with damages. In the fresh order passed on remand the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has given a different reasoning in order to reach the same conclusion and directed the petitioner to pay the damages and interest towards the belated remittance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the finding recorded by this Court in the order under contempt with respect to the impugned order it was not open 3 to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to come to a different conclusion on the basis of entirely different reasoning and without even adverting to the observations made by this Court in the light of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with respect to the waiver of employees’ contribution by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, on the other hand, submits that in view of the fact that this Court had remitted the matter without binding the authorities to decide in accordance with the observations made in the order under contempt and fresh reasons have been submitted for passing the order dated 2.5.2008 it is not a case where any wilful disobedience of an order of this Court has been made. On a consideration of the order under contempt and the other materials on the record while this Court is of the view that the fresh order passed on remand by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may not strictly amount to a wilful disobedience of the order of this Court but the same definitely borders 4 upon contempt. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. It would, however, be open to the petitioners to challenge the fresh order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in appropriate proceedings. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/