JUDGMENT : 1. The afore-titled 17 writ petitions raise identical questions of law and facts, as such, the same are being taken up together for consideration. By virtue of instant common judgment, the afore-titled cases are proposed to be decided together. 2. Before coming to the common issues of law and facts that arise out of afore-titled writ petitions, it would be apt to give a brief description about the nature of relief sought by the petitioners in the afore-titled writ petitions. 1. OWP No. 963/2015: 3. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged recovery proceedings leading to issuance of impugned recovery notice bearing No. JK/J-151/393-95 dated 11.06.2015 issued by respondent No. 6, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,28,934/- on account of arrears of provident fund contribution, administrative charges and damages on provident fund contribution as also on administrative charges. 2. OWP No. 1383/2012: 4. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/59/251 dated 24.08.2012 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby recovery on account of provident fund dues to the tune of Rs. 1,17802/-, has been directed to be effected from the petitioner. 3. OWP No. 1400/2012: 5. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. DPFC/J/3725-26 dated 22.07.2008, notice bearing No. DPFC/J/1048-85 dated 24.10.2008, notice bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/4229-30 dated 12.11.2010, notice bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/2413-14 dated 30.11.2011, notice bearing No. DPFC/J/2906-07 dated 08.12.2011 and notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/574/293 dated 19.09.2012 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner, besides being asked to pay an amount of Rs. 90,58,500/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on account provident fund contribution and damages on account of administrative charges, notices in respect of recovery have been issued against the petitioner in respect of aforesaid amount. 4. OWP No. 987/2015: 6. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J/43/UNC/369-71 dated 10.06.2015 and the consequential proceedings, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,53,565/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 5. OWP No. 1032/2015: 7. The petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition, has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-160/384-86 dated 11.06.2015, whereby he has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,53,565/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 5. OWP No. 1032/2015: 7. The petitioner, through the medium of this writ petition, has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-160/384-86 dated 11.06.2015, whereby he has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,10,852/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 6. OWP No. 1033/2015: 8. The petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-307/381-383 dated 11.06.2015, whereby he has asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,90,681/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 7. OWP No. 1036/2015: 9. Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-516/390-92 dated 11.06.2015 issued by Additional Provident Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,28,830/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 8. OWP No. 1039/2013: 10. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged recovery notice bearing No. JK/J-162/360-62 dated 10.06.2015 issued by the Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby a recovery of Rs. 8,39,950/- has been sought from the petitioner on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 9. OWP No. 1228/2015: 11. The petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. JK/J-UNC-UNC/387-89, dated 11.06.2015 issued by Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,80,817/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 10. OWP No. 1230/2015: 12. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged recovery notice bearing No. JK/J-3070/366-68 dated 10.06.2015 issued by Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 41,94,417/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges. 11. OWP No. 895/2016: 13. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notices bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/5305-07 dated 08.12.2012, Astt.Coll/588/1268 dated 16.02.2016, Astt.Collr/588/1483, dated 22.03.2016, Astt. Coll/J/588/359 dated 13.05.2016 issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 11. OWP No. 895/2016: 13. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notices bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/5305-07 dated 08.12.2012, Astt.Coll/588/1268 dated 16.02.2016, Astt.Collr/588/1483, dated 22.03.2016, Astt. Coll/J/588/359 dated 13.05.2016 issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,24,68000/- on account of provident fund dues and notices for recovery have been issued against the petitioner for the aforesaid amount. 12. OWP No. 993/2016: 14. The petitioner has challenged Notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/602/266 dated 04.05.2016 issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu seeking recovery of Rs. 6,55,194/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges and damages from the petitioner. 13. OWP No. 994/2016: 15. The petitioner has challenged Notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/262/1547 dated 04.04.2016 issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby a recovery of amount of Rs. 2,62,802/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges and damages on provident fund contribution as also on administrative charges against the petitioner have been ordered. 14. OWP No. 997/2016: 16. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notices bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/263/1580 dated 04.04.2016 and Spl.Coll/J/263/466 dated 31.05.2016 issued by Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby recovery of amount of Rs. 14,98,934/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges has been ordered against the petitioner. 15. OWP No. 1000/2016: 17. By virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. Spl.Coll/J/264/465 dated 31.05.2016 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby recovery of amount of Rs. 66,133/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges and damages has been ordered against the petitioner. 16. OWP No. 2664/2018: 18. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice bearing No. Addl.PFC/J/566-68 dated 10.11.2018 and Notice No. JK/J/4376-109 dated 28.03.2018, issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,63,218/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges, whereafter, recovery of the said amount has been ordered against the petitioner. 17. WP(C) No. 3723/2019: 19. 1,63,218/- on account of provident fund contribution, administrative charges, damages on provident fund contribution and damages on administrative charges, whereafter, recovery of the said amount has been ordered against the petitioner. 17. WP(C) No. 3723/2019: 19. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notice No. JKJ/J/UNC/3200 dated 25.11.2013, ADDL.PFC/J/572-574 dated 13.06.2014 and Spl.Coll/J/599-1023, dated 06.09.2019 issued by the Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,10,898/- on account of provident fund contribution administrative charges on account of provident fund contribution and damages on account of administrative charges, whereafter, recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,55,898/- has been ordered against the petitioner. 20. The first issue that arises for determination in all the afore-titled seventeen writ petitions is as to which is the competent authority to issue recovery notices and the second issue is as to whether assessment of dues allegedly recoverable against the petitioner(s) has been made in the aforesaid cases in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of J&K Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions, Act 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1961). 21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the pleadings and the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. 22. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, section 9 of the Act of 1961 provides the mode of recovery of money due from the employer, which reads as under: “9. Mode of recovery of moneys due from employers.––Any amount due–– (a) from the employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme applies in respect of any contribution payable to the Fund, damages recoverable under section 16, accumulations required to be transferred under sub-section (2) of section 17 or any charges payable by him under any other provision of this Act or of any provision of the scheme ; (b) from the employer in relation to an exempted establishment in respect or of any damages recoverable under section 16 or any charges payable by him to the Government under any provision of this Act or under any of the conditions specified under section 19; may, if the amount is in arrear, be recovered by the Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. 23. 23. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that any amount due from an employer on account of contribution payable to the fund and the damages recoverable under Section 16, if the same is in arrears is to be recovered by the Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. So the recovery for money due, which includes the provident fund contribution and the damages recoverable under section 16 of the Act of 1961 from the employers has to be made by the Government. 24. Section 21 of the Act of 1961 deals with delegation of powers, which reads as under : 21. Delegation of powers.––The Government may direct that any power or authority or jurisdiction exercisable by it under this Act or any scheme shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the Government as may be specified in the notification. 25. From the afore-quoted provision, it is manifest that the Government is authorized to delegate its power or authority or jurisdiction to any officer or authority subordinate to it and the said authority or officer has to be specified in the notification in this regard. 26. According to the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, who has issued the impugned recovery notices and orders of recovery is not competent to exercise the jurisdiction of the Government and it is only the Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, who has been vested with such power. In this regard, reliance has been placed on SRO 323 dated 07.10.2004, which reads as under: “SRO 323: in exercise of the powers conferred in Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996, the Government hereby confer the powers of Assistant Collector of the first class upon the Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners to be exercised by them within their territorial jurisdictions for recovery of contributory Provident Fund dues form the defaulting establishments under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Employees Provident Funds Act, 1961” 27. It is clear from a perusal of the afore-quoted SRO that powers of Assistant Collector of 1st Class for recovery of contributory provident fund dues have been vested on Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners. It is clear from a perusal of the afore-quoted SRO that powers of Assistant Collector of 1st Class for recovery of contributory provident fund dues have been vested on Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners. Another notification which needs to be taken note is SRO 421 dated 17.12.1964. It reads as under: “SRO 421 In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section 21 of Jammu and Kashmir Employees Provident Fund Act, 1961 (XV of 1961) the Government-hereby direct that the power of recover of damages from the employer making default in the payment of contribution to the Fund under excise of the said Act shall also be exercisable by the Commissioner Jammu and Kashmir Employees Provident Fund” 28. The afore-quoted SRO provides that power of recovery of damages from the employer making default in payment of contribution to the fund is to be exercisable by the Commissioner, J&K Employees Provident Fund. Thus, the power to recover damages from the employer vests with the Provident Fund Commissioner. So in the first instance, recovery order for damages, which is payable by an employer for making default in payment of contribution to the fund or for making default in payment of administrative charges has to be issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner. The said damages along with provident fund dues and administrative charges, as per provisions contained in section 9 of the Act of 1961 are recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in this regard, as per SRO 323 dated 07.10.2004, the powers of the Collector have been vested on the Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced a copy of Government Order No. 46-L&E of 2009 dated 16.07.2009, which provides that two officers Sh. G. S. Sofi and Sh. Kamal Mohindru, Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners have been placed as Additional Provident Fund Commissioners in their own pay and grade and it has been further provided in the said Government order that the Additional Provident Fund Commissioners shall exercise the same powers as they were exercising as Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners. 30. The question that arises for determination is whether the aforesaid Government order, which has been issued by the Labour and Employment Department vests jurisdiction with Additional Provident Fund Commissioners to issue recovery notices and enforce recovery of the provident fund dues and damages as arrears of land revenue. 30. The question that arises for determination is whether the aforesaid Government order, which has been issued by the Labour and Employment Department vests jurisdiction with Additional Provident Fund Commissioners to issue recovery notices and enforce recovery of the provident fund dues and damages as arrears of land revenue. The answer has to be in negative because the powers of Collector for recovery of dues as land revenue can be vested upon an officer only in terms of Sub Sections (4) and (5) of Section 6 of J&K Land Revenue Act. 31. Government Order dated 16.07.2009 has been issued by the Labour and Employment Department not in exercise of powers under the J&K Land Revenue Act nor the same has been issued by way of a notification under Section 21 of the Act of 1961. It is a general administrative order, which cannot be termed as a notification either under section 21 of the Act of 1961 or a notification conferring powers of the Collector in terms of Sub Sections (4) and (5) of section 6 of the J&K Land Revenue Act. Thus, the Additional Provident Fund Commissioner cannot be held to be vested with jurisdiction to issue recovery orders in respect of provident fund dues and damages as arrears of land revenue as contemplated in Section 9 of Act of 1961. 32. Adverting to the facts of the present writ petitions, in all these cases except in OWP No. 2664/2018, the recovery notices as well as orders of recovery for provident fund dues, administrative charges and damages have been issued by Additional Provident Fund Commissioners exercising the powers of Collector. In OWP No. 2664/2018, the recovery notice as well as order of recovery in respect of dues as arrears of land revenue has been issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Thus in none of the cases the recovery orders/notices have not been issued by Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, the authority competent to exercise such power in terms of SRO 323 dated 07.10.2004. In these circumstances, neither the recovery notices nor the orders directing recovery of the dues as arrears of land revenue, which have been impugned in these writ petitions, have been issued by the competent authority. On this ground alone, the same are liable to be quashed. 33. That takes us to the second issue, which relates to the determination of dues from the petitioner. On this ground alone, the same are liable to be quashed. 33. That takes us to the second issue, which relates to the determination of dues from the petitioner. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to Section 8A of the Act of 1961, which reads as under: “[8-A. Determination of moneys due from employers.–(1) Any officer authorised by the Government in this behalf may, by order, determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act or the Scheme and for this purpose may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary. (2)The officer while holding any inquiry under this section, shall have such powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, Samvat 1977, for trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:– (a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents ; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) issuing commission for examination of witness; and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat, 1989. (3) No order determining the amount due from any employer shall be made under sub-section (1), unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. 1” 34. From the above provision, it comes to the fore that an officer authorized by the Government has to determine the amount due from an employer and for such purpose, he has to conduct an enquiry. The authority authorized to conduct enquiry has powers of a civil court in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person, or examining him/her on oath, in respect of discovery and production of documents, in respect of receiving evidence on affidavits and regarding issuance of commission for examination of witnesses. The enquiry proceedings have the colour of judicial proceedings. Sub Section (3) further provides that the order determining the amount due from the employer, cannot be passed unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. 35. The enquiry proceedings have the colour of judicial proceedings. Sub Section (3) further provides that the order determining the amount due from the employer, cannot be passed unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. 35. This Court in the case of State Forest Corporation, J&K and others v Commissioner Provident Fund, 2009(3) JKJ 152 , while interpreting provisions contained in Section 8A(3) of the Act, has held that an authorized Officer under the Act has to give a reasonable opportunity to the employer to represent its case, determining the money, which the employer is liable to pay under the Act. In another case, titled, Hotel Jammu International vs State of J&K and others, 2009(1) KLJ 523, it has been held by this Court that without conducting inspection and providing any opportunity in terms of Section 8A(3) of the Act of 1961, the assessment of dues cannot be made. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of R. K. Goyal and Associates vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2004 KLJ 193. 36. The Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs Provident Fund Commissioner and others, (1991) 1 SCC 68, while interpreting the provisions of section 7A of the corresponding Central Provident Fund Act which is in pari materia with Section 8A of the Act of 1961 observed as under: “9. It will be seen from the above provisions that the Commissioner is authorised to 'enforce attendance in person and also to examine any person on oath. He has the power requiring the discovery and production of documents. This power was given to the Commissioner to decide not abstract questions of law, but only to determine actual concrete differences in payment of contribution and other dues by identifying the workmen. The Commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion. That is the legal duty of the Commissioner. It would be failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings requests for summoning evidence from a particular person.” 37. The Commissioner should exercise all his powers to collect all evidence and collate all material before coming to proper conclusion. That is the legal duty of the Commissioner. It would be failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly when a party to the proceedings requests for summoning evidence from a particular person.” 37. From the aforesaid analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that before determining the amount due from the employer, the authorized officer of the Government has to not only offer a reasonable opportunity to the employer of representing its case, but the said officer has to conduct an enquiry and it is only thereafter that determination of amount due from the employer has to be made. It is pertinent to mention here that as per SRO 328 dated 26.07.2018 issued by the Government, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners have been designated as assessing authorities for the purposes of section 8A of the Act of 1961. 38. In all the cases, which are subject matter of this judgment, no enquiry seems to be have been conducted by the Assistant Provident Fund Officer or for that matter any other officer with a view to determine the provident fund dues of the petitioner(s). The record produced by the respondents suggests that no such enquiry has been conducted in any of the cases. The recovery notices and orders of recovery of provident fund dues and damages have been issued by the Additional Provident Fund Commissioner without there being an order of assessment in terms of Section 8A of the Act of 1961. 39. The passing of an order under Section 8A of the Act of 1961 and giving an opportunity of hearing to the employer, before passing such an order, is an absolute necessity. This is clear from the language of section 8A of the Act of 1961. This position of law is strengthened by the subsequent provisions of the Act, vis., Section 8B and Section 8C of the Act of 1961. Section 8B of the Act of 1961 gives a right to the aggrieved person to file a review against the order made under Section 8A, whereas Section 8C gives a right to the aggrieved person to file an appeal before the Provident Fund Commissioner against the order made under Section 8A or Section 8B of the Act of 1961. Section 8B of the Act of 1961 gives a right to the aggrieved person to file a review against the order made under Section 8A, whereas Section 8C gives a right to the aggrieved person to file an appeal before the Provident Fund Commissioner against the order made under Section 8A or Section 8B of the Act of 1961. If no order of assessment under Section 8A is passed, the aggrieved person has no occasion to avail the remedy of filing a review or appeal. Thus, making of an order of assessment is imperative. 40. In the instant matter, in none of the cases, the respondents have passed an order of assessment under Section 8A of the Act of 1961. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to file a review under Section 8B or to file an appeal under Section 8C of the Act of 1961 before the appropriate authority. Thus, the respondents have violated the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1961 with impunity in the instant cases. Therefore, the impugned notices are not sustainable in law. 41. For the foregoing reasons, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned recovery notices and the impugned orders of recovery of alleged dues as arrears of land revenue are quashed. The respondents are, however, at liberty to hold an enquiry in terms of Section 8A of the Act of 1961 in each of the aforesaid cases and thereafter, proceed further in the matter in accordance with law as discussed hereinbefore.