ORDER In so far as the present petition is concerned barring merits it challenges certain provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952. The provisions challenged are of v section 16(1)(c) of the Act. On merits the contention is to the effect that while deductions have been made from the emoluments of the workers/staff, provident fund is not being paid. Simultaneously, it is contended that recently a Circular being Memo No. 3537, Patna, dated 5.7.2003 (R.T.C. Eka Bha. N.) was issued by the State Road Transport Corporation of deduction from the salary for contribution towards family pension and yet pension is not being paid either. Between the contentions as are raised the High Court does not desire to make any comment because the Counsel appearing for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation has brought to the notice of the Court an order passed by the Supreme Court dated 16.4.2001, which is reproduced: "Issue notice to State of Jharkhand. In as much as this Court has been monitoring the entire scheme to be implemented in relation to the reorganization of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and issuing directions and now more than one State is involved in it, we think it appropriate for the High Courts not to pass any orders inconsistent with the order made by this court. In the circumstances, if any order has been passed for withholding the salary of the Administrator of the said Corporation, the same shall stand stayed. It is also made clear that the High Court of Jharkhand or High Court of Patna shall not pass any order inconsistent with the order made by this court." It is clear from the order that the Supreme Court is monitoring the entire scheme in relation to the reorganization of the Corporation, aforesaid, and in the matter relating to issues between the staff and the management particularly of payments towards salaries. Pension or provident fund is only consequential to salary. The Supreme Court has also made an observation that while matters are pending before the Supreme Court the High Court of Jharkhand or the High Court of Patna may not pass any order inconsistent with the order made by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, this court feels that it ought not to be passing any order which may contradict any scheme which is being formulated by the Supreme Court. Thus, consigned.