JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against a judgment dated August 7, 2009 passed in the writ petition bearing W.P. No. 20734 (W) of 2005. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the writ petition filed by the respondent School was allowed. The orders impugned to the writ petition passed under Sections 7A and 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1952’) were set aside with the direction that the amount, if any, deposited by the institution in the statutory fund maintained by the Provident Fund Organization should be transferred with all accumulated amount to the Treasury of the State Government within a fortnight from the date of communication of the above order. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that the findings of the learned single Judge were based on erroneous observations. According to him, the respondent School was not getting the benefit of grants-in-aid from the State Government though there was material on record before the learned single Judge to show that the deposit had been made with the State Government towards the provident fund contribution of its employees on two occasions and there was no further document for arriving at a conclusion that the respondent School had been enjoying the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme. 4. Our attentions have been drawn towards several communications dated March 31, 1997, May 19, 1997, show-cause notice dated July 3, 2004 and communications relating to the above show-cause notice dated August 11, 2004, August 19, 2004 and August 27, 2004 to substantiate that all efforts were made by the Enforcement Officer of the appellants to ascertain whether the respondent School had been covered under the said scheme or not. In the event of failure on the part of the respondent School to produce a single document in support of their contention that their employees had been covered under the West Bengal Non-Government Educational Institutions and Local Authorities (Control of Provident Fund of Employees) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1983’), the impugned notices were issued for the purpose of compelling the respondent School to deposit the money under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 5. Reliance is placed by Mr. 5. Reliance is placed by Mr. Prasad on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated February 7, 2005 passed in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others Vs. The Atreyee Welfare Trust and others (In Re: M.A.T. No. 817 of 2002). 6. To the contrary, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent School being assisted by Mr. Soumya Majumdar towards a Government Order vide No.2156 Edn.(S)/1E-14/67 dated September 20, 1967 to show that in respect of the terminal benefits for teaching and non-teaching staff of secondary schools in the State, the Government decided that the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme should be sanction for all approved permanent whole- time teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized non-Government Secondary Schools including Senior Basic Schools and Madrasahs which have come or may come under the Grants-in-aid Scheme. 7. Our further attention is drawn towards the provisions of Sub-rule (m) of Rule 3 of the Recognized Non-Government Secondary Institution Pension Rules, to show that the benefit of contributory provident fund was extended by the State Government to the Recognized Non-Government Secondary School having a note to the above Rules. According to the above note, an institution shall be treated to have participated in the Grants-in-aid Scheme of the Staff if it has been in receipt of lump; salary deficit or deficit grant for its regular maintenance from the Director of Public Institution, West Bengal, or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf, although the grant was temporarily withheld for non-fulfilment of any of the requisite conditions for such grant and is subsequently restored on the fulfilment of the conditions of the grant. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from a communication dated November 18, 1976 issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, recognition was granted to the respondent School initially for two years with effect from January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976 subject to the conditions, amongst others, that teachers should be paid their salaries according to the Grants-in-aid Rules and Teachers, Clerks and Class-IV Staff of the school should be given the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund according to the existing Rules. It is also submitted by Mr. It is also submitted by Mr. Ghosh that it would be evident from a communication dated September 2, 2005 issued by the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Serampore Sub-Division, Hooghly addressed to the Treasury Officer, Serampore, Hooghly that the respondent School deposited the provident fund accumulation of 13 teaching and 2 non-teaching staff including previous balance through T.R. Form No.7. According to him, the above materials were adequate for the learned single Judge to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent School was covered under the said Act of 1983 and the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act of 1952 was also applicable in respect of the respondent School. Reliance is placed by him on the decision of Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 579 in support of his above submissions. 8. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this appeal. 9. It is not in dispute that the sheet-anchor of the findings of the learned single Judge was that the respondent School got Grants-in-aid from the State Government. 10. We are of the opinion that it does not matter whether the respondent School got the benefit of Grants-in-aid Scheme from the State or not in view of the foot note of Sub-rule (m) of Rule 3 of the said Rule of 1983. 11. From the materials produced before us by Mr. Ghosh as recorded hereinabove, we find no error in the findings of the learned single Judge that the respondent School was enjoying the benefit of Grants-in-aid Scheme from the State. 12. It is also not in dispute that there was no error in the findings of the learned single Judge that the respondent School had been approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education subject to the conditions, amongst others, that Teachers should be paid their salaries according to the Grants-in-aid Rules and Teachers, Clerks and Class-IV Staff of the school should be given the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund according to the existing Rules. 13. 13. It is also evident from the communication issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Serampore Sub-Division, Hooghly issued under Memo No. 594/SER dated September 2, 2005 that the respondent School deposited the provident fund accumulation together with previous balance through T.R. Form No.7 in the Office of the Treasury, Serampore, Hooghly under the said Rules of 1983. Therefore, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the respondent School is entitled to get the benefit of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act of 1952 because the above establishment was under control of the State Government and its employees were entitled to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund under the said Rules of 1983 framed by the State Government. 14. Therefore, the decision of The Atreyee Welfare Trust and others (supra) has no manner of application in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case. 15. In view of the above discussions and observations, we are of the opinion that the order impugned to this appeal does not require our interference. 16. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 17. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.