- (1.) The petitioner has filed this Pubic Interest Litigation (in brevity 'the PIL') under Chapter XXII-A Rule 385A to 385R of the High Court Rules read with Article 309 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that your Lordships may be graciously enough to kindly allow this Public Interest Litigation, and - I. to kindly issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby the respondents be directed to deduct the TDS from the provident fund account of the Retd. Employees who have availed the option to continue their GPF account. II. to kindly issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby the respondents be directed to recover the tax from the subscribers from whom account respondent have failed to deduct TDS. III. to kindly issue a writ or Mandaums or any other writ, order or direction in nature thereof and thereby the respondents be directed to give the option to continue with GPF account and not to add various others pension benefits in the scheme. IV. to kindly issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and the impugned amendment be held illegal and void. V. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) The petitioner, heard in person, through video conferencing alleged in the petition that the State Government by exercising the powers conferred by the proviso of the Article 309 of the Constitution and Rule 21C of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in brevity 'the Rules of 1951'), formulated the Rajasthan 'The New General Provident Funds Rules, 1997' (in brevity 'the Rules of 1997'). The Rules of 1997 were formulated so as to reduce or minimize the difficulties faced by the government servants in getting their provident funds claims cleared. However, the State Government from time to time through various amendments has changed the basic structure of the fund by exercising the power under Article 309 of the Constitution and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1951. These amendments provide that the account holders can also deposit their gratuity, commutation of pension, leave encashment etc. in their provident fund account. The petitioner further alleged in the aforesaid PIL that due to lack of proper clarification and classification between the provident fund account of servicing and retired employees, there is a scope of misusing this scheme by the retired employees by using advantage of taxation laws which were meant only for servicing employees. The petitioner along-with the PIL has annexed Annex.3-amendment dated 28.06.2012, by which again an amendment was introduced under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Rule 21 of the Rules of 1951, wherein sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1997 was substituted, which reads ad- infra:- "(1) An account holder/ an AIS Officer of Rajasthan Cadre on his retirement shall have the option of continuing his Provident Fund Account with the department for any period for depositing pensionary benefits like amount of gratuity, commutation of pension, maturity claim of insurance, encashment of balance of Privilege Leave etc. An account holder/ an AIS Officer of Rajasthan Cadre whose account has been closed shall also be eligible to get his account revised and continue for aforesaid deposits. This facility shall also be available to the retired Judges of Rajasthan High Court at their option".
(3.) We have heard the petitioner in person through video conferencing and scanned and scrutinized the entire material which is with the instant PIL.;