JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Both these writ petitions raise common question of law and are being therefore decided jointly. In order to appreciate the controversy the facts of both the cases are being noted separately. In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9850/2008: 2. The petitioner submits that she attained superannuation and she was member of the Employees Provident Fund Pensions Scheme 1995. She was granted pension vide PPO No. 5010 since 2001. It is a case where an order has been passed on 19th April, 2007 by the Provident Fund Department stating thereby stopping her pension on the basis of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. In S.B.Civil Writ Petition 3205/2010: 3. The petitioner submits that he retired while holding the post of Accountant with effect from 31.7.2001 from Adarsh Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School and in view of his being Member of the Pension Scheme of 1995, he was granted pension by the Provident Fund Department. It is his case that his pension was also stopped by the Provident Fund Department from June 2007, on the basis of view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court. 4. Both the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have challenged the orders of the respondent on the ground that before passing orders of stopping pension, they were not provided opportunity of hearing. It is their contention that after receiving pension for almost six years, a vested right was created in their favour, which could not be taken away without giving them opportunity of hearing. 5. The next contention of the learned counsels is that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court was not a judgment in rem and did not apply to the petitioners, who were not parties to that case. It is their contention that even the Institutions wherein the petitioners were employed, had not preferred any writ petition in the High Court for claiming exemption of the provisions of the Act of 1952 and therefore the Department could not have applied the judgment passed by the Supreme Court or for that matter of this Court, to the present petitioners and the petitioners’ pension could not been stopped. It is pointed out that this court in a judgment reported in 2001(4) WLC 295 , directed the Provident Fund Department to apply the said judgment on all the petitioner Institutions and also kept it open for any other Institution, who may seek exemption by depositing an amount of Rs.5000/- with the Provident Fund Department. It is submitted that no such amount was deposited by their Institute as per their knowledge. 6. Reply has been field by the Provident Fund Department as well as the Institute in both the petitions. In the first petition, it is stated that they are having a doubt regarding applicability of the judgment for all the institutions, however, the Provident Fund Department has applied the said judgment in rem all over the State of Rajasthan and started to transfer PF amount to personal deposit account of State Government in pursuance of the above judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2007(1)SCC page 268. The respondent Provident Fund Department also stopped the pension, family pension etc. However, in their reply, they submitted that “they are facing following problems: 1. Whether the judgment is applicable to all institutions or only to petitioner-institutions. 2. Whether the judgment says only about Provident Fund to be returned. 3. Some employees are filing cases to release pensions or family pensions. In this situations whether the respondent is bound to release the same. Having regard to above, this Court must interpret the judgments accordingly.” 7. So far as the institute is concerned, they have come out with their reply pointing out that so far as the pension contribution is concerned, the same still lies with the Provident Fund Department and is not being returned. It has been stated at bar by the counsel for the Provident Fund Department, however, that it has returned the PF amount so deposited to the PD account of the State. 8. So far as the second case i.e. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3205/2010 is concerned, the Provident Fund Department has engaged another counsel, who states that he has already filed his reply and submits Pension Scheme is part of the Act of 1952. As the Supreme Court has held the Act of 1952 not to be applicable to the institute/Schools, in the State of Rajasthan who are governed by the Act of 1989. It is stated that entire amount has been deposited with the State Treasury. As the Supreme Court has held the Act of 1952 not to be applicable to the institute/Schools, in the State of Rajasthan who are governed by the Act of 1989. It is stated that entire amount has been deposited with the State Treasury. If any amount was to be claimed by the petitioners it has to be from the Institute or from the State Government. 9. Having noted the respective submission, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Act of 1952. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1952, read as under:- 16. Act not to apply to certain establishments – (1) This Act shall not apply – (a) to any establishment registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to co-operative societies employing less than fifty persons and working without the aid of power; or (b) to any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any Scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits; or (c) to any other establishment set up under any Central, Provincial or State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits; 17. Power to exempt - (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification exempt, whether prospectively or retrospectively, from the operation of all or any of the provisions of any Scheme – (a) any establishment to which this Act applies, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the rules of its provident fund with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable than those specified in section 6 and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits which on the whole are not less favourable to the employees than the benefits provided under this Act or any Scheme in relation to the employees in any other establishment of a similar character; or (b) any establishment if the employees of such establishment are in enjoyment of benefits in the nature of provident fund, pension or gratuity and the appropriate Government is of opinion that such benefits, separately or jointly, are on the whole not less favourable to such employees than the benefits provided under this Act or any Scheme in relation to employees in any other establishment of a similar character. Provided that no such exemption shall be made except after consultation with the Central Board which on such consultation shall forward its views on exemption to the appropriate Government within such time limit as may be specified in the Scheme.” 10. In case of Balbari Vidya Mandir Churu and 20 Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1085/2000 decided on 16.1.2001 reported in 2001(4)WLC page 295 Single Bench of this Court was examining the issue wherein petitioner institutions claimed that they are entitled in exemption from the provisions of the Act of 1952 and the directions issued regarding deposit of contributory provided under with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was invalid. After considering and examining the provisions and the stand of State Government, this Court reached to the conclusion as under: Para 30. Some of the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged before me that after transfer of accounts from Treasury/Sub-Treasury of the State Government, to the account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the latter has forcibly recovered excess contributory provident fund amounts, from the petitioner-institutions. Some of the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged before me that after transfer of accounts from Treasury/Sub-Treasury of the State Government, to the account of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the latter has forcibly recovered excess contributory provident fund amounts, from the petitioner-institutions. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present cases, I hereby direct such petitioners, to make their representations before the Director, Local Fund Audit Department of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, R.C. Dave Marg Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur within six weeks form today, and the Director, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to such petitioner-institutions, shall pass speaking orders relating to forcible excess contributory fund, recovered from them, by the Regional Provident FundCommissioner, jaipur Excess amount, if any, found by Director, Local Fund Audit Department, is made refundable to such petitioner-institutions. With prio r approval of the Finanace Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan at jaipur. 31. All the petitioner-institutions are hereby directed, to move applications, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, within six weeks from today, for obtaining cheques from his office, relating to contributory fund amounts, along with interest, accrued thereon throughout till the date of issuing of cheques, for the purposes of being paid in the personal deposit accounts of the petitioner-institutions, in the Government Treasury/Sub-Treasury, under the enactment of 1989, read with rules framed thereunder, making the respondent No. 5 entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- as administrative charges from each of the petitioner- institutions. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is directed to issue a cheque, to all the petitioner-institutions, expeditiously, preferably, within four months from today. The petitioner-institutions are also hereby directed that after receipt of cheques, they are to deposit the cheques in their personal deposit accounts, in the Government Treasury/Sub Treasury, with in the meaning of Section 16(2) of the enactment of 1989, read with chapter-VIII of the Rules of 1993, within three days from the date of receipt of cheques from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, subject to observations made in the body of the order, all these writ petitions are allowed and the order impugned dated 14.8.1997, is set aside and rule 92 of the Rules of 1993, is hereby declared ultra vires to statutory provisions, contained under section 16(2) and Section 43 of the enactment of 1989. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cost is made easy. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cost is made easy. After dictation of judgment, the members of the Bar, present in Court, made a request to mark the judgment ‘reportable’. The request is allowed and the judgment is marked ‘reportable’. 11. The said judgment was examined by the Division Bench and upheld as reported in 2002(3)WLC page 74. The matter did not rest here and an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court, which was decided on 30th October, 2006, reported in 2007 (1)SCC 268 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and the Supreme Court, while examining various provisions of EPF Act, as quoted above, took note of the stand of the State Government and noted that “it is not disputed that the concerned respondent institutions was paying contribution towards Provident Fund dues to the State Government in accordance with the Scheme framed by the State Government.” It also examined the effect of word ‘control’ as quoted in Section 16(1) (B) of the Act of 1952 and after further considering the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, held that “32. In our view, the State Act is a complete code in itself with regard to the educational institutions and the State Government exercises substantive control over the institutions even though the institutions are not "owned" by it. The word "control" has not been defined under the EPF Act, 1952. para 35 . We further observe that the State Government has the power of Superintendent or the authority to direct, restrict or regulate the working of the educational institutions. It was, therefore, submitted that the institutions had satisfied both the conditions (i) and (ii) mentioned above and as such they would fall within the exception contained under Section 16(1)(B) of the EPF Act, 1952.” 12. After having held so, the Apex Court noted the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan 26th October, 1993 which reads as under: "GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN Labour Department No.F.13(9)Shram/82-Pt.II, Jaipur Dtd.26.10.1993 NOTIFICATION Notification No.F.13(9)Shram/82-Pt.II dated 14.02.1983 and even notification dated 23.12.1988 issued by this department under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central Act 19 of 1952) is hereby nullified with immediate effect. In this regard, it is hereby clarified that if the relief- granted educational institutions want to seek exemption for their employees, for whom they get relief, under the provisions of Employees Provident fund Scheme 1952 then such educational institutions can seek exemption from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur as per para 27 of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, after obtaining applications from their such employees. By the Order of Governor Sd/- Ramveer Singh Bhanwar Labour Commissioner and Deputy Secretary to the Government" 13. In the circumstances, the civil appeals filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were dismissed and the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed. 14. In view of the Government of Rajasthan notification dated 26th October, 1993(supra) now question arises whether the said view taken on the petitions by the institutions of the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing the said institutions to deposit the amount with them instead of State Government as invalid could be treated as directions of the Supreme Court to the PF authorities to return the amount to the institutions who had already deposited the amount with the PF Department and to mean that those who are already receiving pension under the Pension Scheme of 1995 would be deprived of the pension which they were receiving. 15. Admittedly, the Government of Rajasthan had issued notification dated 26th October, 1993 granting exemption under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1952 leaving it open to the concerned institutions to seek exemption from the RPF Commissioner. There is no direction by Apex Court or by this Court to treat the judgment in rem and deprive the persons who are receiving pension. As has been noted above, the PF Department has instead treated the judgment in rem and has returned back the PF deposit with them to the PD account of the State Government without any such directions. It is not a case where the institutions have sought exemption from the Act of 1952 or of the scheme of 1995. The petitioners before this Court remained as contributories and received pension. 16. In the circumstances it is found that the action of the respondent Provident Fund Department was uncalled for. The decision taken on their own level relying upon the judgment which was completely on different facts and which did not contain any such direction, was wrongful act on their part. 16. In the circumstances it is found that the action of the respondent Provident Fund Department was uncalled for. The decision taken on their own level relying upon the judgment which was completely on different facts and which did not contain any such direction, was wrongful act on their part. If they have deposited amount with the PD account in the State treasury, it is at their own will and that the petitioners, who have retired long back and were receiving pension under the Scheme 1995, cannot be deprived of the same. If the amount is required to be withdrawn back from the State Government, it is for the PF Department to take appropriate steps at their own level, however, for such reasons, pension, which is already being paid under Scheme of 1995 to the concerned persons, cannot be stopped and the same is accordingly directed to be released. 17. It is to be noted that the institutions which had come up before the High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court, were those who were depositing PF contributions with the State Government whereas the present institutions do not fall in category and therefore in the facts of the case which has been taken as a cue by the PF Department to deny pension to the employees under the Scheme of 1995 cannot be said to be valid. 18. One of the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner relating to non compliance of principle of natural justice while withholding the pension of the petitioner need not be addressed in the present order in view of the discussion as above. However, it is observed that while withholding pension amount is taking away the vested right of an employee and in normal course, principle of natural justice would apply but if the authorities pass an order purportedly in-compliance of judgment or order pass by the Court, the issue of compliance under the principle of natural justice would not arise. 19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to receive pension treating them under the Scheme of 1995. If any amount has been deposited by the PF Department to the State Treasury, they will take appropriate steps and upon such steps being taken, the State Government shall be required to return the amount back to the PF Department for the purpose of continuity of pension scheme. If any amount has been deposited by the PF Department to the State Treasury, they will take appropriate steps and upon such steps being taken, the State Government shall be required to return the amount back to the PF Department for the purpose of continuity of pension scheme. This order same shall be applicable to the similarly placed persons also who need not approach to this Court. 20. As regards the interest on the amount, the same shall be released to the petitioners @8.5% as applicable as on today. Accordingly, the PF Department shall be entitled to receive the some interest from the State Government treasury. 21. Compliance shall be made within a period of three months from today failing which the contempt proceedings may be initated by the petitioners without further notice.