IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 23078 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

BANSHILAL SHARMA S/O SHRI CHHAGANLAL SHRMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. CARPENTER HOUSE NO.401, WARD

1.

NO.8, NEAR KACHAWA TEMPLE POST BHATKHEDI TEH. MANASA (MADHYA PRADESH)

NANURAM SHARMA S/O SHRI DALUJI SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUPERANNUATED RIVER FROM NEEMUCH

2.

DEPOT ON 31.7.2004 BUNGLOW NO. 35, HOUSE NO. 8, GALI NO. 5, VEER PARK ROAD, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

RAKESH MOHAN NIGAM S/O SHRI S.B. NIGAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VRS RTD. L.D.C FROM DEWAS DEPOT ON

3.

28.02.2006 C-46-III, NEW SABARI, LAV KUSH AWAS VIHAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRAMOD C. NAIR, ADVOCATE)

AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MPRTC H.O. HABIBGANJ BHOPAL

1.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VALLABH

2.

BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RACHANA ZAMINDAR ON BEHALF OF MS. KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

01. The petitioners before this Court, the ex-employees of MPSRTC, retired on different dates under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, have filed this present petition claiming interest on the employees deposit fund. The petitioners' contention is that the present matter is squarely covered by a judgment delivered by this Court in case of Amanullah and others v/s The Managing Director, MPRTC, Bhopal & Another (W.P. No. 7461/2009) decided on 26.10.2009.

02. This Court in the aforesaid case relying upon the earlier judgments on the subject has passed the following order-

“2- According to the petitioners, they are entitled for the interest on employees deposit funds as per the rates prescribed through notifications issued by the State Government and as per the method of calculation prescribed from year to year basis in the manner specified in the regulations X (2) (3) and (4) of the Regulations framed by the Respondent/Corporation Employees Deposit Funds Regulations, 1985 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. According to the petitioners the interest on the deposit of employees deposit funds under the Employees Deposit Scheme, has not been paid to them.”

3- When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.2.08. passed in the case of Anil Jain v/s Managing Director, MPSRTC and another [Writ Petition No. 7350 of 2007 (S)].

4- The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

5-Accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of this petition in the light of the order passed in the case of Anil Jain (Supra) and also in the light of the order dated 13.2.08 passed in the case of Girish Joshi and another v/s Managing Director, MPSRTC and another decided on 13.2.08 directing the respondents to examine the petitioners claim about the interest on employees deposit funds and pay the amount of interest if found to be not paid on the petitioners deposits of employees deposit funds as per the rate prescribed through notifications issued by the State Government and as per the method of calculation prescribed for year to year basis in respect of General Provident Fund Accounts and in the manner specified in clause X (2) (3) and (4) of the Regulations. The amount as may be found due shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.”

03. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/MPSRTC has not disputed the order passed by this Court and has fairly stated that the present petition can be disposed of in the light of the order dated

26.10.09 passed in the case of Amanullah (supra).

04. Resultantly, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment dated 26.10.2009, the respondents are directed to examine the petitioners