Judgment 1. The question to be decided in this writ application is whether the employees of the Regional Provident Fund Organisation, Patna can be compulsorily deputed for election duty. 2. It appears that by order dated 21.1.2000 the District Election Officer, Patna has directed some officers specified in columns 1 and 2 to report on 9.2.2000 for performing duty of presiding officer and polling officer to the election to be held on 12.2.2000. This order has been challenged by the Union of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bihar, Patna, mainly on the ground that the staff and other employees of the organisation do not come within any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of the Amended Provisions of Section 159(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Ordinance No.23 of 1997, which is known as the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner by his letter dated 20.1.1998, after taking legal opinion has opined that since the staff of Employees Provident Fund Organisation are the employees of Central Board of Trustees, they are exempted from the election duty as per the exemption granted under Sub-Section 2(iii) of Section 159 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Ordinance was necessitated after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. State Bank of India, Patna and Ors. reported in 1995(2) PLJR 43(SC). His second argument is that in view of the provisions as laid down in Article 310 read with Article 324 of the Constitution, the employees of the organisation cannot be held to be the "staff" either under the Central Government or of the State Government and, as such, their services cannot be requisitioned for purpose of election duty. 4. His second argument is that in view of the provisions as laid down in Article 310 read with Article 324 of the Constitution, the employees of the organisation cannot be held to be the "staff" either under the Central Government or of the State Government and, as such, their services cannot be requisitioned for purpose of election duty. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contends that though it is true that by the Ordinance of 1997 any other institutions which are being controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or State Government shall, be deemed to be authority for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 159 of the Act, but an exception has been made to the effect that an institution, a concern or an undertaking established under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 are not to be treated as such. But subsequently, while enacting the Act, the sentence "not being an institution, a concern, or an undertaking established under a Central, Provincial or State Act, a company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956" has been deleted. According to him, by the Amending Act of 1998 (Act No. 12 of 1998) that exemption has been removed and, as such, the organisation shall also be deemed to be an authority for the purpose of sub-section(1) of Section 159 of the Act. Accepting the legal opinion as contained in annexure-4 learned counsel submits that this opinion was rendered on the basis of the Ordinance as contained in annexure-2 but after coming into effect of the Amendment Act No.12 of 1998, a different leter has been issued by the Secretary of Election Commission of India dated 11th August, 1998. A copy of the said letter has been produced before the Court after serving of the same on the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. Under Section 159(1) of the Act the authority as mentioned in sub-section (2) is required to make available any such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election when the same is requested by the Regional Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State. 5. Under Section 159(1) of the Act the authority as mentioned in sub-section (2) is required to make available any such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election when the same is requested by the Regional Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State. Subsection (2) of Section 159 of the Act specifies the authorities for the purpose of Section (1) and Clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of the Ordinance reads as follows; "Any other institution, concern or undertaking (not being an institution, a concern or an undertaking established under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956) controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or State Government". In view of this Ordinance the legal opinion was given as contained in annexure-4 indicating therein that the staff, who are the employees of the Central Board of Trustees, are exempted from the election duty. However, by Amending Act 12 of 1998 Clause (iii) speaks of a Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Company Act, 1956 as an authority for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 159 of the Act. Similarly, Clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 159 of Amended Act contemplates the authorities as follows : "Any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government." 6. Thus, from a bare reading of the provisions in the Amended Act, it is clear that the exemption, which was granted to certain institutions, undertaking as well as Company under the Ordinance has now been removed by the Parliament by deleting the word "not being" which was earlier in the bracketed portion of Clause (iii) of the Ordinance. 7. Thus, from a bare reading of the provisions in the Amended Act, it is clear that the exemption, which was granted to certain institutions, undertaking as well as Company under the Ordinance has now been removed by the Parliament by deleting the word "not being" which was earlier in the bracketed portion of Clause (iii) of the Ordinance. 7. Though much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Articles 310 and 324 of the Constitution but, in my view, those provisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of he present case inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the employees of the Provident Fund organisation is a creature of a Central Act, namely, the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. There is no denial of the fact that the Board of Trustees is constituted by the Central Government under Section 5-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which is known as the Central Board. Though the Central Board shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 6-A and 6-C, administer the fund vested in it in such manner as may be specified in the scheme but undoubtedly it is answerable to the Central Government in this regard. Similarly, the Board of Trustees known as State Board is also to be constituted by the Central Government for different States and it will exercise such power and perform such duties as the Central Government may assign to it from time to time. The power of appointment of officers is vested in the Central Government in view of Section 5-D of the Act, 1952. Under sub-section 5 of Section 5-D, however, a State Board may, with the approval of the State Government concerned, appoint such staff as it may consider necessary. sub-Section (6) of Section 5-D reads thus : "The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner (and the Financial Adviser and the Chief Accounts Officer), shall be such as may be specified by the Central Government and such salary and allowances shall be paid out of the Fund." 8. From the aforesaid analysis it is clear that even the method of recruitment, salary and allowances etc. and other service conditions of the employees are to be specified by the Central Government. From the aforesaid analysis it is clear that even the method of recruitment, salary and allowances etc. and other service conditions of the employees are to be specified by the Central Government. In this context if one turns to Clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 159 of Act 12 of 1998 it will be clear that any other institution which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government comes under the purview of definition authority for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 159 of the Act. 9. As noticed above, the petitioners organisation is also an institution established by the Central Government and, therefore, its employees and officers cannot claim immunity from being deputed for election duty. 10. The new provisions in Section 159 after Amending Act 12 of 1998 has been considered by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.9133 of 1999 wherein certain officers and employees of the State Bank of India challenged the communication from the District Election Officer Cum District Magistrate, Patna. While interpreting Clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 159 the learned Single Judge held that the State Bank of India having been established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 it is prima facie covered by Clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 159 and its employees and officers can, therefore, no longer claim immunity from being drafted for election duty. The order of the learned Single Judge was also affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A.No.152 of 1999 dated 22.9.1999. 11. Under the circumstances, in my view, it is not open for the petitioners Union to suggest that the employees of the organisation are not covered within any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 159 as amended by Amending Act 12 of 1998. 12. In the result, I find ho merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.