IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2031 of 2010 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Officer, Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, R.Block, Road No. 6, Patna 800001 Versus Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Bihar, Patna, Through Its Secretary, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, Distt.- Patna ----------- 04. 24.06.2011 Heard Mr. R.S. Pradhan, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, learned counsel representing the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in A.T.A. No. 15(3) of 2006 (M/s. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Vs. APFC) dated 18.07.2008 allowing the appeal preferred by the Board after quashing the order of assessment passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. Facts of the case briefly stated is that proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for determination of liability of contribution of provident fund by the respondent Board in relation to some of the employees. It was the contention of the respondent Board before the Assistant Commissioner that the 2 employees in question continued to be the employees of the Managing Committee of the Board and who were making payment of their salary from the aid and assistance received from the State Government. It was further the contention of the respondent Board that until and unless a notification was issued by the State Government in terms of Section 20 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981, these employees could not be declared to be either a teaching or a non-teaching staff of the Board. It was thus contended that in absence of such notification notifying these employees as staff of the Board, the proceeding initiated by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under the Act for determination of liability was wholly without jurisdiction. Contention of the respondent Board was negated and the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner proceeded to determine the coverage and liability under the Act vide order dated 22.11.2005 and which was put to challenge before the appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and the facts available on the record of the proceeding vide order dated 18.7.2008 after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 20 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981 and the fact that no such notification had yet been issued by the State Government declaring these employees as staff of the respondent Board as also after taking note of the fact that the salary and allowance to these employees were being paid by the 3 Managing Committee of the College, held the order passed by the Assistant provident Fund Commissioner bad in law. The order of coverage and determination of liability was quashed and the proceedings were held to be illegal. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent Board and find no sufficient or justifiable reasons to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Tribunal especially in view of admitted position that no notification under Section 20 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act has been issued by the State Government and in absence of which notification, the employees in question cannot be held to be the staff of the Board. The fact that the salary and allowance of these employees are routed through the Managing Committee of the Institution from the aid and assistance given by the State Government further absolves the respondent Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board from the responsibility of contribution towards the Provident Fund under the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)