JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to join State of Jharkhand to be represented through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, as a party respondent No. 5, as respondent No. 1 is an instrumental of the State of Jharkhand. Respondent No. 1 is nothing, but, an agent of the State. Applying "Lifting of veil" principle, State will be necessary party. 2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Necessary amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day. 3. Notice to the newly added party. Mr. Kamal Ranjan, J.C. to Q.P.I., waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 5. 4. Petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the writ petition to the counsel for the newly added respondent No. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the newly added respondent No. 5 seeks time to get instructions upon the argument, canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is an employee working with respondent No. 1, which is a authority, created by the State by an act of legislation. Thus, respondent No. 1 is an-instrumentality of the State of Jharkhand. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that "Contributory Provident Fund amount is not paid to the petitioner, though amount has been deducted from his salary, which is a-contribution of the employee. The said amount has been misappropriated by the Directors or Administrators of the respondent No. 1, especially, by the Managing Director and no amount has been deposited as a separate corpus, as required under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1952 for the sake of bravity). 6. Looking to this serious allegation against the State instrumentality State of Jharkhand is joined as party-respondent No. 5. "I hereby, direct the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi" to file an affidavit that what action he is contemplating to take against the Board of Directors or against the responsible officers of the respondent No. 1, who has deducted sizable amount from the salary of the employee on month-to-month basis and not deposited the same in the employer's contribution as separate corpus under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This tantamounts to several criminal offences including u/s 406, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 14 of the Act, 1952 etc. This tantamounts to several criminal offences including u/s 406, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 14 of the Act, 1952 etc. It also tantamounts to misconduct of a civil side and by applying "lifting of veil" in principle, it will be a duty of the State to make the payment to the small employees of its instrumentality, which is respondent No. 1. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further vehemently submitted that always Board of Directors or the high ranking officers of respondent No. 1 are responsible and has insisted of criminal actions against them and their arrest for misappropriation of the sizable amount. These points will be answered by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, State of Jharkhand on returnable date and if, any action has been initiated, the same will be informed to this Court against respondent No. 1 as well as against the responsible officers of respondent No. 1. Petitioner is also permitted to initiate criminal action against the concerned respondent under the relevant, provisions of Indian Penal Code and/or the Act, 1952 or such other Act. 8. List this matter under the top five cases on December 21, 2009. 9. I hereby direct the Secretary, Urban Development Department to inform this Court and the lawyer of respondent No. 1 and also to the lawyer of the petitioner to inform to this Court whether respondent No. 1 is giving any car facility or telephone facilities or such other facilities to the Directors or Administrators of respondent No. 1. All these facilities will be pointed out to this Court so that appropriate order can be passed for the high ranking officers of respondent No. 1 who deducted amount from the salary of an employee for contribution of the provident fund but, is being misappropriated or not being deposited in a separate corpus, as required under the law.