( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India has been directed by the petitioners challenging the order Annexure P-9 dated May 11, 1992 passed by respondent whereby respondent Provident Fund commissioner, Madhya Pradesh made a clarification of Notification dated September 17, 1964 passed by the Central Government in pursuance of Clause (a) sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds act, 1952 (Act No. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the "act") about payment of inspection Charges regarding exempted employees under Section 17 of the Act and held that establishment/petitioners is liable to pay inspection Charges on the whole amount of wages on which Provident Fund contributions are paid and thereby in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 7-A of the act directed the Establishment/petitioners to deposit the differential amount of inspection charges within 15 days from the receipt of impugned order failing which further necessary action will be taken against the establishment/petitioners to realise the same. ( 2 ) FOR deciding the controversy between the parties the required necessary facts as set out in the petition as well as return in brief are that the petitioner is a registered company having its cement factory named as Jamul cement Works, at Jamul, District Durg. As per provision under Section 27-A of the Act, the petitioners company is exempted from depositing the Provident Fund and is allowed to have its own provident fund scheme. The provisions of the Act is applicable only to employees drawing salary up to Rs. 2500/- and the petitioners are giving benefit of the provident Fund Scheme to the employees drawing salary over Rs. 2500/- also. In fact there are two categories of employees of the petitioners; (i) who are drawing salary less than rs. 2500/-, (ii) the other who are drawing salary more than Rs. 2500/- per month. The employees who are drawing salary less than Rs. 2500/- per month are employees under the Act and the employees who are drawing more than rs. 2500/- per month salary are exempted under para 26 of the Employees Provident funds Scheme, 1952 (for short the "scheme" ). ( 3 ) THE controversy arose between the petitioners and the respondent regarding payment of inspection charges. According to the petitioners in view of Notification dated september 17, 1964, inspection charges @ zero point zero nine per cent (0. 2500/- per month salary are exempted under para 26 of the Employees Provident funds Scheme, 1952 (for short the "scheme" ). ( 3 ) THE controversy arose between the petitioners and the respondent regarding payment of inspection charges. According to the petitioners in view of Notification dated september 17, 1964, inspection charges @ zero point zero nine per cent (0. 09%) of the pay in respect of which contribution would have been payable "but for such exemption". Therefore, inspection charges in respect of the exempted employees drawing pay in excess of Rs. 2500/-per month would be calculated on the basis of rs. 2500/- per month salary whereas the enforcement officer A. M. Bhonsle wrote a letter dated April 5, 1988 for payment of inspection Charges in respect of employees exempted under Para 26 of the Employees provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Ultimately the petitioners submitted representation before the legal Advisor, Government of India as per provision under Section 19 (A) of the Act for getting the clarification on the point "as to whether the inspection charges are payable on the total salary or restricted to the salary of Rs. 2500/-". Copy of the representation filed with the petition is Annexure P-6. The respondent made certain preliminary objections. The Legal advisor, Government of India vide his order dated February 5, 1991 dismissed the representation on the ground that representation by means of the petition is misconceived and not maintainable as it is not within the purview of section 19 (A) of the Act. Copy of this order is annexure P-8. Finally respondent, after hearing the petitioners passed the impugned order dated may 11, 1992 under Section 7-A of the Act (Annexure P-9) while interpreting the notification dated September 17, 1964, directing the petitioners to pay the Inspection Charges upon whole salary of the employees. ( 4 ) IN return filed by the respondent, he supported the order Annexure P-9 and submitted that although, administration charges are payable in respect of Employees Provident fund Scheme which is administered by the provident Fund Commissioner Office and inspection Charges are payable by the exempted establishments but so far as the recovery of their charges are concerned the principles are the same and the amount are chargeable in both the cases for the purposes of administering the provisions of the Scheme. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners has submitted that true and correct meaning has not been given to the wordings of Notification. According to him as the ceiling of pay on which provident Fund Contributions under the employees Provident Fund Scheme is Rs. 2500/- per month, inspection charges, therefore, in respect of the exempted employees drawing pay in excess of Rs. 2500/-per month would be calculated on the basis of rs. 2500/- per month salary. His this argument is based on the wordings used in Notification i. e. "but for such exemption". He further submitted that under the Act and Scheme administrative charges and inspection charges are payable by the employer and both are distinct and separate. Administrative charges are payable in case of Employees. Provident fund Scheme which is fully administered by the Regional Provident Fund Office to meet the cost involved in administration of Employees provident Fund Scheme whereas the Inspection charges are payable in respect of an exempted scheme for meeting the cost involved in inspection of exempted scheme. According to the learned counsel, both are not at par and for administration of the scheme, Provident Fund office is required to control the whole thing whereas in exempted scheme they are only required to inspect the office of the petitioners regarding maintenance of account of exempted scheme. ( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for respondent submitted that there is no difference between administrative charges and inspection charges. In administrative charges the Provident Fund Office is required to maintain the whole account, keep watch on the person liable to deposit Provident Fund amount and look into and manage the office whereas in exempted scheme also the department is required to inspect the whole account books and take care the compliance of the scheme by the employer. In sum and substance the learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, this court is of the view that the respondent, while interpreting the Notification has not given true meaning of the language used therein and also failed to make the proper line of demarcation between Administrative Charges and inspection Charges. By their own saying, administrative charges are required to pay by the employer to the Provident Fund Office to manage the whole affair. By their own saying, administrative charges are required to pay by the employer to the Provident Fund Office to manage the whole affair. For this purpose the office is required to have established and maintain independent account books, employ the staff for keeping watch upon the units/employer falling within the purview of the Act. In unexempted scheme everything is required to be done and maintain that is to say whole supervision and administration is to be done by the concerned Provident Fund Office under the Act whereas in exempted scheme in time to time concerned officer is required to only inspect the account books of the employer whether he is properly depositing the amount as per requirement of law. There is much difference between administration and inspection. If both the words are having same meaning why the legislation has used these two words in the Enactment and Notification. The administration of Provident Fund Scheme by the Department has a wide area to control and manage whereas in inspection once in a while officer is required to go and inspect the account books of the employee. Under Section 27-A (2)of the Act for exempted employees from scheme the employer is required to maintain account, submit returns, provide such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges and invest Provident Fund collections in such manner as the Central Government may direct and under Section 30 of the Act the employer is required to pay the contribution as well as administrative charges. In Explanation the administrative charges is defined as under: "for the purposes of this paragraph the expression "administrative; charges" means such percentage of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee, as the Central government may, in consultation with the central Board and having regard to the resources of the Fund for meeting its normal administrative expenses fix. " ( 8 ) IN Section 27-A for Exempted Scheme the charges payable are called as Inspection charges and under Section 30 of the Act when the Scheme is not exempted and fully applicable to the employer he is required to pay the administrative Charges which is defined as mentioned hereinabove. " ( 8 ) IN Section 27-A for Exempted Scheme the charges payable are called as Inspection charges and under Section 30 of the Act when the Scheme is not exempted and fully applicable to the employer he is required to pay the administrative Charges which is defined as mentioned hereinabove. By notification central Government has prescribed as to how inspection charges are to be paid which reads as under: "new DELHI THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1964. S. O. 3450 - In pursuance of Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment nos.- (i) S. O. 1460, dated the June 16, 1961 (ii) S. O. 1363, dated the May 6, 1963 (iii) S. O. 1521, dated the May 24, 1963 and of all other orders issued on the subject, the Central Government hereby directs that the employers in relation to an establishment or any person or class of persons exempted under Section 17 of the said Act, shall be required to pay to the Employees Provident fund with effect from the October 1, 1964, inspection charges at the rate of zero point zero nine per cent (0. 09 per cent) of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees of the establishment or receivable by the persons or class of persons, as the case may be, in respect of which contributions would have been payable but for such exemption, within fifteen days of the close of every month. 2. For the removal of doubts it, is hereby notified that nothing contained in paragraph i shall apply to the Inspection Charges already accrued in accordance with the notifications and orders referred to in the said paragraph and for the said purpose the notification and orders shall continue to apply as if they had not been superseded. " ( 9 ) IN the Act, Inspection Charges is not defined. " ( 9 ) IN the Act, Inspection Charges is not defined. According to LAW OF LEXICON (ENCYCLOPAEDIC LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL dictionary) 2nd Reprint [edition 2003 at Page 953, Inspection is defined thus: "inspection means to look upon; to examine for the purpose of determining the quality and detect what is wrong and is not necessarily confined to optical observation, but is ordinarily understood to embrace tests and examinations". ( 10 ) IN the light of aforesaid meaning of inspection, Inspection Charges would be the charges to be paid to the Department for the purpose of Inspection of the Account Books and other record required to be maintained by the employer for Exempted Scheme. ( 11 ) ON plain reading of the Notification inspection Charges are payable in respect of the exempted employees of the company equivalent to 0. 09% of the salary limited to Rs. 2500/ -. Under the Exempted Scheme employees who are drawing more than Rs. 2500/- per month are exempted under para 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme 1952. Therefore, in respect of the exempted employees drawing pay in excess of Rs. 2500/-per month would be calculated on the basis Rs. 2500/- per month salary. If it is not the meaning and interpretation of the Notification, then the use of word "but for such exemption" would be redundant. The Notification says that employers or any person or class of persons exempted as per provision under Section 17 of the Act are required to pay Inspect Charges (a)0. 09% of the pay (basic wages, Dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees of the establishment for which the contribution would be payable, "but for such exemption". Here the line of demarcation is available for the purposes of payment of inspection Charges. The Inspection Charges are payable on the salary of Rs. 2500/- and not for total salary payable to the employee. ( 12 ) THIS Court is of the view that the respondent in the impugned order has failed to draw line of demarcation and difference between administrative charge and inspection charges for which different provisions are prescribed in the act and both are having different and distinct meaning as discussed heremabove. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent, directing the petitioners Establishment Jamul cement Works to pay inspection charges @ 0. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent, directing the petitioners Establishment Jamul cement Works to pay inspection charges @ 0. 09% on the whole amount of wages beyond Rs. 2500/- on which the Provident Fund contribution has been paid/payable from August, 1985 and onwards is illegal and incorrect interpretation of the Notification. The Inspection Charges are being restricted under the Notification only to statutory limit of Rs. 2500/- per month salary of the employee. ( 13 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed. The petitioners are not liable to pay inspection Charges beyond the amount of salary of Rs. 2500/- for exempted employees under Para 26 of the Scheme. The Inspection charges can be recovered by the respondent by the petitioners only on the amount of wages up to Rs. 2500/ -. .