Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

In this writ petition pending for the past decade, the issue that falls for consideration is as follows: What is the rate of interest to be charged on the amount due from the employer under the Self-Financing Pension Scheme assuming that there is a delay on the employer's part in remitting the said amount. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank, and the third respondent was its Secretary, now retired. The third respondent having joined the service in 1968 was initially placed under suspension on 02/05/1994 pending disciplinary proceedings. Eventually, when those disciplinary proceedings ended in the third respondent's removal from service, he approached the Joint Registrar and obtained Ext. P2 order, through which he was directed to be reinstated. Accordingly, through Ext. P3 order, the petitioner society reinstated the third respondent on 01/06/2001. The said reinstatement, however, was conditional. The third respondent's absence from 02/05/1994 to 31/03/1999 was treated as 'Leave without Allowance'; from 01/04/1999 to 31/05/2001, as 'Leave with Allowance'.

2. As can be seen from the record, having been reinstated on 01/06/2001, on the very same day, the third respondent submitted an application to be retired under 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme' (VRS). It appears that the petitioner accepted the third respondent's request and retired him under 'VRS.'

3. In the light of the reinstatement of the third respondent and his subsequent retirement, the petitioner Bank on 20/08/2001 remitted Rs. 1,17,820/- to the first respondent towards the pension contribution of the third respondent. After receiving the said amount, the first respondent, on 18/12/2001, issued Ext. P6 demanding an additional amount of Rs. 1,34,166/-.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged Ext. P6 before this Court and invited Ext. P7 judgment. This Court, having set aside Ext. P6, directed the first respondent to reconsider the issue of balance amount to be contributed by the petitioner Bank. In that context, the first respondent issued Ext. P8 demand notice, dated 01/12/2004, quantifying interest in two faces, i.e. interest from May, 1994 to March, 1995 at 12% and from 04/02/1999 to 30/11/2004 at 24%. Thus, the balance amount was re-quantified as Rs. 1,29,705/-.

5. Nevertheless, the first respondent, once again, issued Ext. P9 demand notice, dated 14/12/2004, which is said to be a revised one. In the said demand notice, the first respondent demanded Rs. 1,03,626/- maintaining the rate of interest at 12% and 24% for the periods as had been shown in Ext. P8. Once again questioning Ext. P9, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent both in Exts. P8 and P9 has specifically mentioned that it demanded interest at 12% and 24% for two different periods in terms of Clause 38 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994, (the 'Scheme' for brevity). According to the learned counsel, interest can be charged once there is a default on the employer's part in making regular contributions. Further, he has drawn my attention to Clause 39 of the Scheme and contended, in the alternative, that even if Clause 39 were to be applied, it would only be attracted when there was a willful default on the employer's part in remitting the accumulated Contributory Provident Fund amount prior to the introduction of the Scheme.

7. Eventually, the learned counsel would contend that neither under Clause 38 nor Clause 39 could the first respondent mulct the petitioner with any penal interest. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel, apart from highlighting the illegality of Exts. P8 and P9, has submitted that the petitioner Bank has already paid the amounts demanded in Ext. P9 under protest, though.

8. Sri. K.R. Sunil, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent has initially outlined the Scheme, l