Chattisgarh High Court
G.K. Gupta vs The Managing Director Cidc & Others on 4 July, 2011
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 6510 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6511 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6512 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO
WRIT PETITION S NO 6518 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6517 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6516 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6
WRIT PETITION S NO 1685 OF 2010 & WRIT PETITION S NO 1686 OF 2010 & WRIT PETITION S NO 1687 OF 2010 & WRIT PETITION S NO
& WRIT PETITION S NO 6577 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6578 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO 6579 OF 2009 & WRIT PETITION S NO
G.K. Gupta
Suraj Prasad Awasthy
Balaram Bhatt
Mannusingh Thakur
Ravindra Khurana
Mohd. Hanif
Shaikh Jalil
Sarfuddin
M.B. Shrivastava
D.C. Rai
Surendra Guru Diwan
Radheshyam Awasthy
Gajroop Singh Thakur
K.P. Patel
Badriprasad Srivas
Ishwar Rajak
Ram Singh Bhoi
Ramprakash Mishra
Kulwant Singh Khurana
Mathura Prasad Pandey
D.D. Rai
Vishnu Hari Rathore
Ishwar Rathore
Asaram Rathore
Jagannath Rathore
Rajaram Bhawe
Dhaniram Dhurv
Mohd. Ismail
Udaisingh
Sarfuddin
Gayadin Shukla
Mantheer Ram Sahu
Bhola Jaiswal
K.R. Ansari
Hinchlal Dwivedi
A. Matin
Smt. Jamuna Devi Markam
Pardesigiri Goswami
Lakshman Singh
Hetram Patel
Raghunath Sharma
Ishwar Jaiswal
Usman Ali
O.P. Bajpai
Vijay Tripathi
Israr Ali
Tiharu Ram Sahu
Bharat Kumar Chourasya
Matadin Yadav
Devindra Kumar Gupta
Rashid Ahmed
Narbad Singh
Shivkumar Srivas
Gulam Nabi
Ram Kumar
S.R. Sahu
Shyam Behari Hazari
Motilal Sharma
Lakshmikant Beg Rai
Nandkumar Gupta
Shyam Behari Tiwari
Smt. Kadambai Thakur
D.P. Shukla
Ravindra Kumar Sisodiya
Mohd. Nazir
Anil Kumar Pillai
Mohd. Akram Sidiqui
Devisingh
Hifazat Hussain
Mannulal Dande
S.K. Gupta
Pradeep Asna
Kuleshwar Dubey
Hiralal Sharma
Lokesh Rathore
Janak Singh Thakur
Tarlochan Singh
Mushtaq Maula Ahmed
Rifayatulla
Shaikh Sarifuddin
K.K. Giri
Chamanlal Srivas
M.L. Sahu
Surendra Singh Thakur
Rasiraman Pandey
R.D. Dubey
Shambhunath Yadav
Tejpratap Pandey
Syed Gulam Ali
Hari Kishan Yadav
Mehmood Hasan
V.K. Gupta
V.K. Jain
Amar Singh Devangan
Laxmi Prasad Tiwari
Umesh Kumar Shukla
Sachhidanand Sen
Uttamchand Belani
Dr. Hemlal Banjare
Dauram Jagat
Sunil Kumar Shrivastava
Audh Behari Tiwari
Anirudh Singh Thakur
Chandulal Yadav
Manmohan Singh
A.K. Dwivedi
Balgobind Dubey
Anil Bajpai
L.N. Jain
Ramavtar Gupta
Mahadev Thakre
Rohitlal Sahu
Anil Thakre
Babu Abraham
R.S. Shukla
Dwarika Prasad
Rajesh Gandhi
Adbul Aziz Khan
Shankarlal Devangan
Mahendra Kumar Srivas
D.K. Tiwari
Motiram Nishad
S.P. Singh Ogre
Girish Kumar Devangan
K.P. Jangde
Shivshankar Kashyap
Pramod Kumar Godpalliver
Madhav Namdev
Vinod Kumar Mishra
Vishwanath Swarnakar
Rajendra Gandhi
Shaikh Mohd. Shafi Qureshi
Anil Kumar Vastrakar
Bhupendra Kumar Shukla
Abdul Wahid
Prakash Sharma
Abdul Razak
Chandrasen Singh Chandel
...Petitioners
Versus
The Managing Director CIDC & Others
...Respondents
! Shri C M Nair Advocate for the petitioners ^ Shri V V S Murthy Deputy Advocate General for the State Shri Ashish Shrivastava Shri Sudeep Jouhari Shri Ratan Pust CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated: 04/07/2011 : Judgement (Delivered on this 4th day of July, 2011) (Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
1. W.P.(S) Nos. 6510, 6511, 6512, 6513, 6514, 6515, 6516, 6517, 6518, 6519, 6520, 6521, 6522, 6523, 6524, 6525, 6526, 6527, 6528, 6529, 6530, 6531, 6532, 6533, 6534, 6535, 6536, 6537, 6538, 6539, 6540, 6541, 6542, 6543, 6544, 6545, 6546, 6547, 6548, 6549, 6550, 6551, 6552, 6553, 6554, 6555, 6556, 6557, 6558, 6559, 6560, 6561, 6562, 6563, 6564, 6565, 6566, 6567, 6568, 6569, 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573, 6574, 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579, 6580, 6581, 6582, 6583, 6584, 6585, 6586, 6587, 6588, 6589, 6590, 6591, 6592, 6593, 6594, 6595, 6596, 6597, 6598, 6599 & 6600 of 2009 and W.P.(S) Nos. 1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, 1730 & 1731 of 2010 and 6601 of 2009 involve the same question of law asto whether the petitioners are entitled to get interest on dearness allowances deposited under the Employees Deposit Fund Scheme and by which rate ? Therefore, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order.
2. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that in exercise of power conferred under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (for short "the Act, 1950"), the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Employees Deposit Fund (for short "the EDF") has framed the regulation with the previous sanction of the Government, which is known as Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Deposit Fund Regulations, 1985 (for short "the Regulations, 1985"). The said regulations were enacted as per Board resolution No.2560 dated 4-9-1985 and with the approval of Home Department and circulated vide circular No.186 dated 17-03-1986 introducing the employees Deposit Fund Scheme to deposit the arrears of pay/revision of pay/D.A./Additional D.A. By the said regulations, 50% amount of the revision of pay or DA or additional DA are required to be deposited by way of a separate fund known as Employees Deposit Fund and interest on the said amount is payable by the Corporation in accordance to the method of calculation, as prescribed, on year to year basis by the State Government, in respect of General Provident Fund itself. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the amount of dearness allowance and the amount of revision of pay are liable to be refunded back to the employees along with interest.
3. According to the petitioners, the respondents are required to pay the statutory interest towards amount of 23% D.A. impounded in the Employees Deposit Fund Scheme (from 01-07-1995 to 30-06-1996); 24% of D.A. impounded in the said Scheme (from 01-07-1996 to 31-03- 1999) and 17% of D.A. impounded from 01-04-1999 onwards. For getting the interest, the employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "MPSRTC") approached the respondent authorities by filing several representations etc. When their requests/ representations did not fructify, some of the employees preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Indore. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the Court on 1-10-2007 with the following directions:
"(a) The respondents are directed to calculate the amount of DA and interest thereon asper the rate prescribed by the Government by their Notifications, and specified in para 4 & 10 above, with in a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. It is further directed that after calculating the said amount of interest, it be paid within a period of one month there after.
(b) In W.P.(S) No.7723/2006(S) retiral benefit has not been duly paid as per the petitioner; however, it is open to the petitioner to submit a representation indicating those dues within 15 days from today and shall be decided by the respondents within two months thereafter. If it is found that any amount against retiral due is payable the same be released, otherwise for the remaining retiral dues petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse of law afresh.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the MPSRTC preferred writ appeal being W.A. No.638/2007(The Managing Director, MPSRTC and Another v. Pramod Limaye & Others), the said writ appeal was also dismissed by order dated 07- 02-2008. Thereagainst, the MPSRTC preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 18-12-2008 (Annexure P/6). Even for getting the said benefits, some of the employees filed contempt petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The case of the present petitioners is similarly situated to the case of the employees, who have approached the High Court in writ petition. The contention of the petitioners is that on the basis of said decisions, the petitioners also made representations before the respondent authorities, but the same have not been considered and decided. Thus, these petitions.
5. Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the issue involved in this batch of petitions is squarely covered by a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pramod Limaye & Others v. The Managing Director & Another1 and other connected matters, which was taken up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 18-12- 2008 (Annexure - P/6) upheld the finding and order passed by the learned Single Judge and thereafter, by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in The Managing Director and Others v. Mangilal Sharma2.
6. Shri Nair, would further submit that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the EDF as admissible and payable in respect of the General Provident Fund Accounts as prescribed from year to year by the State Government. Thus, denial of said interest to the petitioners, who have sought voluntary retirement, is unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary. The respondents, may accordingly, be directed to make the payment of interest as fixed in respect of the General Provident Fund Accounts as prescribed from year to year by the State Government.
7. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short "CIDC") submits that the EDF came into force when the respondent No.1 was not in existence. It is the liability and responsibility of the respondent No.3/MPSRTC to pay the interest, as provided under Regulations, as the respondent No.1 came into existence by virtue of notification dated 27-12-2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short "the Act, 2000") w.e.f. 31-12-2002.
8. Shri Shrivastava, would further submit that the EDF scheme was discontinued on 31-3-2002 much before the notification dated 27-12-2002 was issued. Thus, the entire responsibility of payment of interest, as aforestated, is on MPSRTC, not on CIDC. The CIDC is not a successor of MPSRTC, as CIDC was created as a nodal agency to resettle and rehabilitate the existing staff members of MPSRTC, who were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on dissolution of MPSRTC. Thus, CIDC in no way is responsible for making payment of interest, which became due and payable before existence of CIDC. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short "the VRS") came into existence on 1-1-2003.
9. Learned counsel would next submit that the petitioners are governed by the terms and conditions of the VRS, as the payment made to them was full and final. Thus, they cannot raise the issue of payment of interest after they have accepted the VRS. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions of Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Smt. Basanta Bai & Another3, Bank of India and Others v. O.P. Swarnakar and Others4 and HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Another v. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and Others5.
10. Shri Shrivastava, would also submit that CIDC had received the liabilities to the tune of Rs.213 crores i.e. 22.24% of total liability of Rs.962 crores in accordance the notification dated 27-12-2002. CIDC had paid an amount of Rs.28.55 crores to all the employees who had accepted the VRS. It was next contended that this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay and laches also. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in S.S. Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and Others6, Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another7, State of Punjab and another v. Balkaran Singh8, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jashwant Singh and another9, Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others10 and Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra11.
11. Shri Johri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/MPSRTC, would submit that after retirement of the petitioners under the VRS, the relationship between employer and employee had come to an end, thus they should take recourse to alternative statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, 1947") and this petition may be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.
12. Shri Johri would further submit that six petitioners namely; Suraj Prasad Awasthi (W.P.(S) No. 6511/2009), Ramprakash Mishra (W.P.(S) No. 6527/2009), Sarfuddin (W.P.(S) No. 6539/2009), K.R. Ansari (W.P.(S) No. 6543/2009), A. Matin (W.P.(S) No. 6545/2009) & M.L. Sahu (W.P.(S) No. 6592/2009) had retired prior to the appointed day i.e. 27-12-2002 and their dues have been settled. Learned counsel would submit that the entire liability of the payment, if any, is on CIDC after dissolution of MPSRTC pursuant to the notification dated 27-12-2002 issued under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, 2000.
13. Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State adapts the submission made by learned counsel appearing for CIDC.
14. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.
15. Indisputably, the petitioners were the employees of the, then, MPSRTC. While the petitioners were in service, MPSRTC framed the Regulations, 1985 in exercise of its power conferred by Section 45 of the Act, 1950 wherein it was provided that a fund namely EDF shall be created on the basis of deductions made from the monthly emoluments of the employees covered under the scheme, deductions on account of arrears of either dearness allowance or additional dearness allowance as decided between the management and recognized representative Union of the employees of the Corporation on negotiation.
16. Clause 7 of the Regulations, 1985 reads as under :
"(7) Funds :
A fund called the employees Deposit Fund shall be created under these regulations by making deductions from the monthly emoluments of the employees covered under the scheme, deductions on account of arrears of either dearness allowance or additional dearness allowance as may be decided upon by negotiation with the recognized representative Union of the employees of the Corporation."
17. In Clause10 of the Regulations, 1985, it is clearly provided that the Corporation shall pay interest on the deposits at such rate and in accordance with such method of calculation as may be prescribed from year to year by the State Government in respect of the General Provident.
18. Clause 10 of the Regulations, 1985 reads as under :
(10) Interest :
(1) The Corporation shall pay interest on the deposits at such rate and in accordance with such method of calculation as may be prescribed from year to year by the State Government in respect of the General Provident Fund Accounts.
(2) Interest shall be calculated with effect from 1st day in each year in the following manner :-
(i) On the amount at the credit of an employee on the last day of the preceding year, less any sums withdrawn during the current year-
interest for twelve months;
(ii) On the amount withdrawn during the current year-
interest from the beginning of the current year upto the last day of the month preceding the month of withdrawal;
(iii) On the amount credited to the account of an employee after the last day of the preceding year- interest from the date of deposit upto the end of the current year;
(3) The total amount of interest shall be rounded to the nearest whole rupee.
(4) When the amount standing at the credit of an employee has became payable, interest shall thereupon be credited only in respect of the period from the beginning of the current year or from the date of deposit, whichever may be later, upto the date on which the amount standing at the credit of the employee became payable. Explanation In this regulation the date of deposit shall, in the case of recovery from pay bills be deemed to be the first day of the month in which it is recovered and in the case of an amount forwarded by the employee, shall be deemed to be the first day of the month of receipt, if it is received by the Chief Accounts Officer before the tenth day of that month, but if it is received on or after the tenth day of that month, the first day of the next succeeding month.
Provided that where the emoluments for a month are disbursed on the last working day or on any other day in the last week of the same month, the date of deposit shall, in the case of recovery from pay bills be deemed to be the first day of the succeeding month."
19. The rate of interest is as under:
Sl.N Year Rate of
o. Interest
1 1995-96 12%
2 1996-97 12%
3 1997-98 12%
4 1998-99 12%
5 1999-00 12%
6 2000-01 11%
7 2001-02 9.5%
20. The deductions made by MPSRTC from the dearness allowance were on the following rates:
i. 23% of Dearness allowance : 01.07.1995 to 30.06.1996 ii. 34% of Dearness allowance : 01.07.1996 to 31.03.1999 iii. 17% of Dearness allowance : 01.04.1999 till the system was discontinued on 31.03.2002.
21. The State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, 2000. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, in exercise of its power issued a notification dated 27-12-2002 under sub-section (3) of section 58 of the Act, 2000, appointing the day i.e. 31.12.2002 as the date on which the MPSRTC stood dissolved.
22. The aforesaid notification dated 27-12-2002 reads as under :
"MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 27th December 2002 S.O. 1373 (E)-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Number S.O. 1365 (E) dated 26- 12-2002 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II Section 3. Sub-section (ii) dated 26th December, 2002 issued under sub- section (3) of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (28 of 2000), the Central Govt. has appointed the 31st day of December, 2002 as the date on which the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation shall cease to function and shall stand dissolved.
And whereas no agreement between the successor States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh has been reached for apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities of the said Corporation.
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Central Govt. hereby makes the following manners for the apportionment of the assets, rights and liability of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Namely:-
(1) The field staff, buses and stores of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Corporation shall be divided on the basis of 'as is where is' as on 1st November, 2000. The head office staff shall be shared by the ratio of 18:82 between Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
The respective States shall be responsible for their share of staff from the date of dissolution.
(2) The sharing of current assets (excluding buses and stores) and liabilities including loans, advances, etc. shall be made by arriving at the formula midway between the formulae suggested by Government of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, i.e. between 18:82 suggested by Chhattisgarh and 26.49 : 73.51 suggested by Madhya Pradesh.
(3) One representative of Government of Chhattisgarh shall be taken on the Board of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation for the transitional period till division is complete.
(4) Salary of staff including Voluntary Retirement Scheme till the date of dissolution shall be paid by the existing undivided Corporation.
F.No.RT-17020/14/2002-T A lok Rawat, Jt. Secy."
23. The sharing of current assets (excluding buses and stores) and liabilities including loans, advances, etc. shall be made by arriving at the formula midway between the formulae suggested by Government of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, i.e. between 18:82 suggested by Chhattisgarh and 26.49 : 73.51 suggested by Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the respective states became responsible from the date of dissolution. Accordingly, the employees were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter, vide notification dated 13-12-2002, the employees have been transferred to CIDC to resettle and rehabilitate them.
24. CIDC immediately framed the retirement scheme, namely VRS, 2003, which came into force on 1-1-2003. In clause 4
(v) of the VRS, it was provided that except provident fund, ex-gratia, pension, gratuity, arrears of bonus and deposited fund, all the outstanding dues between the employees and CIDC would stand concluded finally. The employees would not claim pay revision, transfer/medical allowances, vehicle allowance, housing allowance, telephone allowance etc. as arrears. In respect of EDF and interest accrued thereon, there was no mention asto whether or not such amount stands concluded finally. Thus, EDF as revised and interest accrued thereon claimed by the petitioners are not under the contract of VRS.
25. Clause 4 (v) of the VRS 2003 dated 1-1-2003 read as under "Laknk; fuiVkjk djus ds] rFkk deZpkjh dks lanRr djus ds i'pkr og vius fof/klEer nkos tSls & Hkfo";fuf/k] vuqxzg jkf'k] isa'ku] miknku jkf'k] cdk;k cksul ,oa tek jkf'k dks NksMdj bl ;kstuk ds v/khu fdlh vkSj vf/kd jde dk nkok ugh dj ldsxk u ,slk nkok ekU;
gksxk A blds vfrfjDr LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fRr Lohdkj djus ls lacaf/kr deZpkjh bl ;kstuk ds iSjk &4 [vii] ,,d+ ns; jkf'k ds Hkqxrku dh frfFk ls fuxe@'kklu -kjk vkxs fy;s tkus okys fu.kZ; ds vuqdze esa rRle; izkIr gks ldus okys ykHkksa rFkk iwoZ frfFk ls izHkkoh [retrospective] fdlh va'k ds fy, mnkgj.kkZFk osruozf ifjorZu] fpfdRlk HkRrk] okgu HkRrk] edku HkRrk] fuxe dk okgu] nwjHkk"k vkfn fdlh vU; lqfo/kkvksa vkSj ykHkksa ds fy, fdlh cdk;k [Arrears] nkos dk gdnkj ugh gksxk A"
26. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the VRS is governed by the contract and, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to the abovestated amount cannot be countenanced. There is no gainsaying that the employees shall not be entitled to any amount over and above, which has been a part of the contract under the VRS.
27. The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has clearly held that the scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employee is concerned, therefore, could be waived. The employees having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate or reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. (See : Smt. Basanta Bai (supra) & O.P.Swarnakar (supra)).
28. In the case on hand, the claim of the petitioners for grant of statutory interest accrued thereon, prior to enforcement of VRS was not a part of the contract and, therefore, a clear stipulation that the claim of the deposit under any scheme including interest was excluded from the voluntary retirement contract.
29. Next contention of the respondent CIDC that the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly without explaining the unreasonable delay. The basic principle of not entertaining a petition belatedly for unexplained reasons, is that if the delayed petition is entertained that may cause prejudice to the other parties which had acquired certain rights during this period. In the case on hand, no prejudice has been caused to the CIDC or any other respondents, as the interest was payable to the employees under the Regulations, 1985. Thus, the argument of the respondent-CIDC that the petitions may be dismissed on the ground of delay, is rejected. {See : S.S. Balu (supra), Ghulam Rasool Lone (supra), Balkaran Singh (supra), U.P. Jal Nigam (supra), Tridip Kumar Dingal (supra) and Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar (supra)}.
30. Contention of Shri Johri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent MPSRTC, that the petitioners be directed to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy provided under the Act, 1947 is also rejected. This denial on the basis of availability of alternative statutory forum cannot be put in a straitjacket formula.
31. In Sanjana M. Wig (Ms) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.12w the Supreme Court held as under :
"16..However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the question as to when such a discretionary jurisdiction is to be exercised or refused to be exercised by the High Court has to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case wherefor, no hard-
and-fast rule can be laid down."
32. In a case like this, where other petitioners had obtained relief from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had ultimately became final as the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declined to grant special leave against the orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. There is no point in dismissing the petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
33. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pramod Limaye (supra) held as under :
"11. From the letter issued by the Corporation dated 27/4/2000, it is apparent that the amount of DA was payable with effect from 01/07/95 and the cash payment are to be paid from November and the remaining amount of arrears is required to be deposited under EDF Scheme. Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed with the following directions:
(a) The respondents are directed to calculate the amount of DA and interest thereon as per the rate prescribed by the Government by their Notifications, and specified in para 4 & 10 above, within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. It is further directed that after calculating the said amount of interest, it be paid within a period of one month thereafter.
(b) In W.P.(S) No. 7723/06 (S) retiral benefit has not been duly paid as per the petitioner; however, it is open to the petitioner to submit a representation indicating those dues within 15 days from today and shall be decided by the respondents within two months thereafter. If it is found that any amount against retiral due is payable the same be released, otherwise for the remaining retiral dues petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse of law afresh."
34. The aforesaid view was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter, the Supreme Court declined to grant special leave.
35. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in identical matters.
36. So far as apportionment of liability between MPSRTC and CIDC is concerned, on dissolution of MPSRTC, the assets and liabilities in respect of the employees allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh have been transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh and the liability which arose during the period of the, then, MPSRTC, had already been transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter to CIDC after creation of CIDC by the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, respondents No.1-CIDC & No.2-State are liable to pay the interest accrued thereon at such rate, as prescribed by the State from year to year in respect of General Provident Fund, till the EDF scheme came to an end.
37. For the reasons and analysis mentioned hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed to the following extent :
The respondents No.1-CIDC & 2-State of Chhattisgarh are directed to calculate the interest on the EDF at the rate stated in preceding para 19 and make balance amount to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, except those who have been dealt with in the next sub-para.
It is open to the six (6) petitioners namely; Suraj Prasad Awasthi (W.P.(S) No.6511/2009), Ramprakash Mishra (W.P.(S) No.6527/2009), Sarfuddin (W.P.(S) No. 6539/2009), K.R. Ansari (W.P.(S) No. 6543/2009), A. Matin (W.P.(S) No. 6545/2009) & M.L. Sahu (W.P.(S) No. 6592/2009), who have retired before dissolution of MPSRTC, to make a representation to the respondent No.3 for grant of interest, as stated in preceding sub-para, if their retiral dues have not been settled. In the event a representation is made the same shall be considered and decided by MPSRTC, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation.
38. There shall be no order asto costs.
J u d g e