IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1048 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR , GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR,BIHAR. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,MUZAFFARPUR.-----Appellants. Versus 1. MANGAL MANDAL, S/O LATE RAM CHANDRA MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE BALPATTI, P.S. DARBHANGA SADAR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA.------------------------------Respondents. with LPA No.1113 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL / SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MUZAFFARPUR-----Appellants Versus 1. SHRI INDRA DEO MISHRA S/O LATE GANGA PRASAD MISHRA R/O VILL.- NABHATH, P.S. RAMPATTI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI----------------------------------Respondents. with LPA No.1723 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE/SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, MUZAFFARPUR. ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------APPELLANTS. Versus DEVI SHARAN SRIVASTAVA SON OF LATE BHOJENDRA PRASAD,R/O VILL.- BRAHMPUR, P.S.MANIGACHHI, DISTT.-DARBHANGA----------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate ( in L.P.A. no.1048 of 2010) Mr. J. P. Verma, Advocate ( in L.P.A. no.1113 of 2010) Mr. Ratnakar Pandey, Advocate ( in L.P.A. no.1723 of 2010 ) For the respondents : Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Nityanand Jha, Advocate -------------- 8. 23.2.2011 All the three abovementioned Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the order dated 15.3.2010 passed 2 by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. no.909 of 2007, C.W.J.C. no.499 of 2007 and C.W.J.C. no.961 of 2007. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (Union of India ) has vehemently argued that the matter is not covered under the decision cited in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, Vrs. Nanda Ram and others as reported in 2004(2) PLJR 556 in view of the fact that amendment of the scheme was made on 15.6.2007 and the same has come into force with effect from 16.11.1995. However, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004(2) PLJR 556. However, perusal of the order of the learned single Judge goes to show that the case has been put up by respondents on the ground that the amendment came into force only on 15.6.2007 and it was not made retrospective effect from 16.11.1995, hence the case could not be governed by such amendment. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the 3 amendment could not govern all the cases of the respondents because of the reason that they had retired prior to the amendment which has come into force with effect from 15.6.2007 and the matters are also squarely covered by the judgment reported in 2004(2) PLJR 556, We do not find any merit in these Letters Patent Appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J. )