As pleadings are complete, having heard the parties at length, with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

2. All the petitioners are retired employees of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Limited, a Corporation of the State Government, with the exception of a few who are the heirs of the deceased retired employees. They have come to this Court claiming for the payment of interest on the delayed refunds of their accumulations in their Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “CPF”). They would submit that the Corporation is obliged to pay interest for delayed refund up to the date of actual payment. They challenge Annexure-2, being office order no.284 dated 09.04.2010 circulated under letter no.2252 dated 09.04.2010 and Anenxure-3, being Memo No.7907 dated 22.12.2010, being orders by which the Corporation seeks to deny them the right to receive interest on CPF accumulations beyond the date of their superannuation irrespective of the date of its refund. They contended that these circulars are grossly unreasonable and arbitrary and, thus, violative of Article-14 of the Constitution. Alternatively, petitioners submit that even if statutorily it is held that interest on CPF accumulations are payable only up to the date of their superannuation, by reasons of Corporation being in default, they are liable to be compensated for the inordinate delay in refund of their CPF accumulations, especially in view of the fact that in the service of the Corporation upon superannuation there is no provision for payment of pension.

3. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation, it is submitted that over last two decades the Corporation is going through severe financial crisis and is unable to meet even its liability to pay salary to its employees, as such it should not be asked to pay interest on the delayed refund of CPF accumulations nor there has been any provision made in this regards by the award of the Arbitrator appointed by the Apex Court, namely, Justice Saghir Ahmad, a retired Judge of the Apex Court. It is these rival contentions that have to be examined in the present writ petition.

4. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation came into being on 01.05.1959. The Board of Directors of the Corporation, upon the Corporation being formed, took a decision laying down service conditions of various grades of employees. The Corporation, being covered by the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), in absence of its own Provident Fund Scheme, was to be covered by the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 framed under the Act. It appears that the Board of Directors of Corporation decided to set up their own scheme and, accordingly, it framed the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, 1960 and apparently got exemption in terms of Section-17 of the Act. Section-17 of the Act authorizes the Government to exempt the establishment from the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 if the establishment formulates a scheme for its employees, which over all is more favourable to the employees than the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

5. Why this Court is referring to the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Section-17 of the Act is because paragraph-60 of the 1952 Scheme talks of interest and, inter alia, provides that in case of claim for refund of provident fund accumulations interest shall be payable up to the month preceding the date on which the final payment is authorized irrespective of the date of receipt of the claim from the claimant concerned. Thus, under the 1952 Scheme interest on accumulations of CPF would be payable to the claimant up to the time refunds are made. As would be presently shown what the authorities of the Board of Trustees of the Corporation 1960 Scheme did or are doing is to deny payment o