JUDGMENT 1. This judgment shall govern disposal of the aforesaid two appeals preferred by the appellants-the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the common judgment dated 23.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents-pensioners in the aforesaid two appeals. The respondents in two appeals namely Smt. Vijay Baijal & Satya Narayan Khunteta filed writ petitions aggrieved by the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in stopping their pension on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and Others (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 268. 2. Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.3205/2010 filed petition on the pleading that he had retired while holding the post of Accountant w.e.f. 31.07.2001 from Adarsh Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School and in view of he being Member of the Pension Scheme of 1995, was granted pension by the Provident Fund Department. His case was that the pension was stopped by the Provident Fund Department from June, 2007 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). 3. In the other Civil Writ Petition No.9850/2008, petitioner pleaded that she attained the age of superannuation and was member of the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme of 1995. She was granted pension since 2001. Her grievance was also to the same effect that vide an order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Provident Fund Department, her pension was stopped on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). 4. According to the two writ petitioners (respondents in these appeals), as those petitioners were members of the Provident Fund Scheme of 1995, pension was already granted to them and they were in receipt of pension, their employer Educational Institutions did not prefer any challenge, did not raise any issue with regard to the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'), the judgment of the Supreme Court was not applicable in their case. Further case of the writ petitioners was that in any case in view of the Notification dated 26.10.1993 of the Government of Rajasthan which had granted exemption under Section 17 Sub-Section (1) of the Act of 1952, leaving it open to the concern institutions to seek exemption from the Rajasthan Provident Fund Commissioner, their cases were distinguishable on facts and the Supreme Court decision referred to above could not be applied in rem to all, irrespective of whether or not case of such institution was taken to the Supreme Court. 5. The stand taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was that as the Supreme Court authoritatively pronounced that as regards Non-Government Educational Institutions, who were receiving grant-in-aid and were governed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') which had come into force w.e.f. 01.01.1993, it was held that the said Act was a complete code in itself and it altogether excludes the application of the Act of 1952. 6. Learned Single Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the Supreme Court decision could not be applied in the case of the writ petitioners, who were getting pension under the Scheme of 1955 framed under the Act of 1952 and that the judgment of the Supreme Court was not judgment in rem and further it being a pension scheme, the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in stopping pension and transferring the fund to the State for being dealt with appropriately in accordance with law, was not sustainable. 7. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in these two appeals would submit that there was no scope left for determination of the issue as to whether the Act of 1952 was applicable to Non- Government Educational Institutions governed by the Act of 1989. 8. Drawing attention to the findings recorded by the Supreme Court in the Case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra), referred to above, it is argued that the Supreme Court after interpreting the scope and ambit of Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Act of 1952 came to the conclusion that the said act is not applicable to the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions receiving grant-in-aid which are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1989. He would argue that, though, the Supreme Court was dealing with the scheme of provident fund under the Act of 1989, the Supreme Court decision is based on interpretation of Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Act of 1952, which not only deals with a case where employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund, but it is also of old age pension scheme. According to him, the provisions contained in Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Act of 1952 were interpreted as a whole and the findings were recorded by the Supreme Court, taking into consideration that the employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions receiving grant-in-aid were governed by the State enactment namely the Act of 1989, which contained scheme for grant of provident fund. That by itself, without anything more, was held to be the basis to exclude the Non-Government Educational Institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, from the purview and applicability of the Act of 1952. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (respondents in these appeals) contended that the Supreme Court dealt with a case where, there existed scheme of employees provident funds incorporated in the State by Act of 1989 and not a pension scheme. The pension scheme was otherwise applicable by virtue of exemption granted vide Notification dated 26.10.1993. As the government vide said Notification had granted exemption under Section 17, Sub-Section (1) of the Act of 1952, leaving it open to the concerned institutions to seek exemption from the Rajasthan Provident Fund Commissioner, this issue having not been dealt with, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the pensioners, who are receiving pension under the Pension Scheme of 1955 would not be governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner stopped the pension of the writ petitioners and transferred their funds to the State Government on the ground that in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra), Pension Scheme of 1955, which is framed under the Act of 1952, will not be applicable. 12. It is not in dispute that the respondents-writ petitioners were getting pension under the Pension Scheme of 1955. 12. It is not in dispute that the respondents-writ petitioners were getting pension under the Pension Scheme of 1955. It is also not in dispute that the said Pension Scheme of 1955 has been framed under the Act of 1952. Therefore, if it is held that the Act of 1952 is not applicable, consequently, the Pension Scheme of 1955 would also not be applicable. 13. The question, however, arises for consideration is as to whether the Act of 1952 is applicable to the Non-Government Educational Institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the Government, which includes the Educational Institutions where the writ petitioners namely Smt. Vijay Baijal & Satya Narayan Khunteta were working and retired on different dates. 14. Factual background in which the petition came to be filed before the Supreme Court by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the Sanatan Dharma Girls Secondary School and Others was as follows: 15. After promulgation of the Act of 1989, which came into force from 01.01.1993, the State Government issued an order on 05.08.1997 to implement the provisions of the Act of 1952 on non- governmental aided educational institutions employing 20 or more persons. On 24.01.1998, the State Government passed an order by which it transferred the existing provident fund amount from the State treasury to the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner followed by another letter dated 24.08.1998 in implementation of earlier order. 16. Various educational institutions filed 21 writ petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the orders and circulars of the State Government, which were issued on 05.08.1997, 24.01.1998 and 24.08.1998. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also filed two writ petitions in the High Court. 17. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and allowed 21 writ petitions filed by different educational institutions holding that the State Act would override the provisions of the Act of 1952 and also observed that the educational institutions before the Court would fall under the exception under the amended Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Act of 1952. 18. Intra Court appeals filed were also dismissed holding that the Act of 1952 will have no application to educational institutions before the Court. 19. 18. Intra Court appeals filed were also dismissed holding that the Act of 1952 will have no application to educational institutions before the Court. 19. On 23.02.2003, those educational institutions filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the State Government directing non-governmental aided educational institutions employing 20 or more persons to deposit their contribution with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The writ petitions were disposed off in favour of the educational institution in line with its earlier decision and the appeal was also dismissed. 20. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner approached the Supreme Court. The issue which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court as mentioned in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court was as below:- . 'whether the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952 are applicable to the non-governmental educational institutions or not in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the EPF Act; . and whether the respondent institutions will fall under the exceptions stated in Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act.' 21. Upon examination of the statutory scheme of the Act of 1952 and that of the Act of 1989, the Supreme Court held that 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. On that analogy, it was held that by virtue of provisions contained in Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b), the Act of 1952 will have no application. The arguments raised before the Supreme Court which were accepted leading to dismissal of appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were noted as below:- '39. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in CAs Nos.715-37 of 2005 also drew our attention to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the educational institutions. It is submitted that the order of recovery is patently illegal and unjustified because of the fact that the respondent institution does not come under the purview of the Act of 1952. It is submitted that the order of recovery is patently illegal and unjustified because of the fact that the respondent institution does not come under the purview of the Act of 1952. He would further submit that after the amendment was made in Section 16 of the Act by the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act (33 of 1988) all establishments belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or the State Government have been exempted from the provisions of the Act. Arguing further, he submitted that the words in Section 2(b) and 2(a) are so clear and unambiguous that no further interpretation need be made to amplify the same and that the provisions made in the enactment of 1989 make it clearer that the respondent institution is a recognised educational institution managed by the private management and is within the effective management of the State Government and, therefore, it is entitled to be excluded from the applicability of the Central Act, 1952. 22. It would thus, from the judgment of the Supreme Court, be vividly clear that the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Act of 1952 are not applicable to non-government educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid which were though not owned by the State, but were controlled by the State under the statutory scheme of the Act of 1989. The decision of the Supreme Court was based on interpretation of Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Act of 1952. 23. The Distinction which has been drawn by the learned Single Judge so as to distinguish the cases of the writ petitioners from that of the non-government educational institutions, who had filed petitions challenging applicability of the Act of 1952 before the High Court and whose petitions were allowed which were affirmed by the Supreme Court is legally unsustainable. The decision of the Supreme Court was not confined to limited exclusion of the provisions of the Act of 1952 only for the reason that there existed a provident fund scheme under the Act of 1989. Therefore, to say that as the present cases involve applicability of employees pension scheme under the Pension Scheme of 1955, therefore, Supreme Court judgment will have no application, cannot be accepted. Therefore, to say that as the present cases involve applicability of employees pension scheme under the Pension Scheme of 1955, therefore, Supreme Court judgment will have no application, cannot be accepted. Once the provisions of the Act of 1952 have been held to be inapplicable in respect of non-government educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and governed by the Act of 1989, it's provident fund scheme under the Act of 1952 or the pension scheme framed thereunder, both will have no application. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners that in the matter of application of Pension Scheme of 1955 framed under the Act of 1952, the said Act would be applicable, cannot be accepted as that would amount to placing a different interpretation on the provisions of Section 16, Sub-Section (1)(b) of the Act of 1952 than what has been held by the Supreme Court in the Case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). As the conclusion of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision is that the Act of 1952 has no application in respect of the non- government educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the Government whether it is the provident fund scheme or for that matter pension scheme, both will not apply as both the schemes are framed under the Act of 1952. 24. Another contention, based on exemption Notification dated 26.10.1993 is misplaced in law. Section 17 of the Act of 1952, deals with power to exempt institution, which are otherwise not excluded from the applicability of the Act under Section 16 thereof. While under this section, exclusion from applicability is by operation of law, exemption under Section 17 is by act of authorities. Both operate in different field. The institution, which is otherwise not excluded from the applicability under Section 16 of the Act may, nevertheless, be exempted from the application of the Act of 1952, provided an exemption notification is issued under Section 17 of the Act. In other words, exemption presupposes that Act of 1952 is otherwise applicable. Where, however, Act itself has no application, being in teeth of Section 16, there is no occasion to exempt. The State had earlier issued exemption Notification on 26.10.1993 in purported exercise of power under Section 17, on an assumption of law that Act of 1952 was otherwise applicable. In other words, exemption presupposes that Act of 1952 is otherwise applicable. Where, however, Act itself has no application, being in teeth of Section 16, there is no occasion to exempt. The State had earlier issued exemption Notification on 26.10.1993 in purported exercise of power under Section 17, on an assumption of law that Act of 1952 was otherwise applicable. But the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) settles that in respect of non-government educational institutions, receiving grant-in-aid and governed by the Act of 1989, Act of 1952 has no application. Therefore, existence of exemption Notification dated 26.10.1993 has no bearing on the issue of applicability. 25. We are, therefore, of the view that the action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in transferring the pension fund of the writ petitioners to the State Government for being dealt with under States own pension scheme was in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra). 26. As an upshot of above discussion, the appeals are allowed. Order passed by the Writ Court is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed, however, leaving them to workout their claim for pension under such scheme as framed under the Act of 1989. 27. Appeals are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.