J.B.MEHTA, S.H.SHETH - (1.) The petitioners are the primary school teachers in the employment of Jamjodhpur Taluka Panchayat. They have filed this petition in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which they challenge the validity of the General Provident Fund Scheme framed by the State Government (Annexure B to the petition). It was applied to the primary teachers in the panchayat service with effect from 21st April 1972. The petition shows that on 29th June 1973 the Director of Education addressed a circular letter to all District Educational Officers intimating to them that the General Provident Fund Scheme had been applied with effect from April 1972 to all employees of the School Committee. He further directed them to see that it was Strictly implemented and that there should be no delay in doing so. On 13th May 1974 the Taluka Development Officer Jamjodhpur wrote a letter to the Head Master of Taluka School No. 3 at Jamjodhpur directing him to deduct from the salaries of the teachers the amount of provident fund which had become due and payable under the said scheme for the months of March and April 1974
(2.) It is this scheme which is challenged by the petitioners in this petition.
(3.) Mr. Vakharia who appears for the petitioners has raised before the following four contentions : 1 The State Government has no authority to frame such a scheme. 2 If the State Government has authority to frame such a scheme it is ultra vires secs. 203 and 206 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 3 If the scheme is held to be valid it is not applicable to those teachers who joined service prior to 1st August 1956 in the former State of Saurashtra and also to those who joined the School Board service between 1st August 1956 and 31st March 1963. 4 The impugned scheme is not a Provident Fund Scheme but a compu- lsory Savings Scheme According to him therefore it cannot be given effect to.;