-i^.. .^.?i,.';:';; ,,-^"; L;»: <^';; fi* ^ ..;. j' T '7 t+^ *flHBUBUTjftir j^ %%>&'i ^ c wr- ••} 8 s'- sHiag !QomT w_ juiae&TORg Ar_j&gAL£2a_[Ma£a2A WRir PEIITI0H HO^^J_C? 1998 ( uader Arttele 226/2S7 of the Soas-fiitu-tion of ladAa) l}PiUtBi&E&R BA.JSSBI &.GSO ABOUT 60 ZB&KS, S/8 IASB SHRX H.ri.BAKSHI OOOUsHSTB.TBiLGHBB.MIBIICIPAI. OORPOa&SXOH RAJIUHDCSAON (M.F.). 2)BS.UJI SA0UGBB ABOUT 61 SyLRS,S^ U.TS S-BB.1 R.B.MKTOiaR R/O ia.TgiT aspABa. ,a,RB HO . ss S&MAHB5AOH 5)BiaBa,HI SIN6H TIffl.Km 'AttBB ABOOT 80 XBASS,S/0 UTB SKI J.S.IO.KHR OOCff:BETB.V&eOIHA'rOa, S/0 JAl-a.2PiS.BA,,%&D HG.22 RA,.ntAHBGAOa(M.P.). 1)SIATB M&DHa PR.AI8SH THROUUH : SBGfiBTARI LOCAI, 3EXF (10VBKS NII VALaBH BattK,BHOPa.L(M.F.) 2)CGMM[SSIOHBK tfUNIGIPAL COHPSaiTIOM, R&JHAMDG&GN(M.?.] 3)Biasaroa A»D GO»TB®LIBR(PBSSIOB) SANGANAI.ZA MGAB P&i.SMSaS PALIKa, BBlWto.SHIV&^I HAQAR BHDPAI.CM.P.). • • SB'I'A.IIS O- ffi 'riTION Ulf w' s'\i- \» mGHJCmiKrOVJUDtCATOKE CHHATnSQARH: VltASPVR Sin^e Bendi: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. W.P. No.2101 OF 1998 Petitioners Versus Respondents Prabhakar Bakshi and Others. State ofM.P. & Others. Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Arvind Dubey, Paael lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and3. ORALORDER (24t" Jnly, 2006) The petitioners retired fi?om service and fhey were uot paid pensioneiy benefits in tune. The petitioners fited petitions bemg W.P. No. 4424/1996, W.P. No. 4422/1996 aad W.P. No. 4425/1996 before the High Court of Judicatare at Jabalpur, respectively. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 14.3.1997 on fhe basis of adinission made by the teamed counsel appeariag for the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon and fhe Coiuaussioiier, Miinicipal Corporation, Rajnaadgaon, fhat fheir retiral dues would be paid wifhin two mouths, fi?oin the date of order dated 14.3.1997 dMposed of the petition with liberty to assail ^ain, if the petitioner was not satisfied with the decision ofthe Corporation. It is admitted by the petitioners fhat fhe pensioneiy benefits have been paid but iaterest due on the late "-<• ^''^' ;-~\ .•( • •"\^ "' -•"-»„»... Cs^. ..^"^ ili ' ^. v' payiuent of pensioneiy benefits were not given to fhe petitioners, in accordance with General Provident Fund Rules. The respondent No.2/Coumussioner Muiiicipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, in his reply dated 5.3.1999 has stated fhat the respondent No.2/Corporation has already paid 12 % iaterest on the G.P.F. amount payable to the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Siace fhere was no order in. case of the petitioner No.3 the iaterest @ 5 % on G.P.F. amotint was paid to hri. The respondentNo.2/Corporatioii adnuts payment of 12 % interest on the G.P.P. amount to the petitioners No.l aad 2 aTid 5 % inteiest on the G.P.P. amount to petitioner No.3. According to the respondent No.2 G.P.F. has already been paid. It is further steted iu the afBdavit fhat fhis was not fhe responsibUity of fhe respondent No.2/Corporation to pay 12% uiterest on the pensioneiy amoiint aad gratuity, but it is fh.e responsibilily aad liability ofthe State Goveminent. The State Goverament in its reply has put fhe entire responsibUity on the respondent No.2. Be that as it may, since admittedly the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been paid 12 % interest on G.P.F. ainount the same iuterest be paid to fhe peti.tion.er No.3 also who is similarly situated. The respondeiits are directed to ensiire that fhe interest @ 12 % paid to fhe petitioners No. 1 aad 2 be srfap paid to the petitioner No.3 in accordance with law. This liabitity will be coiabuied liabiUty of fhe respondents in acconlance wifh law. For fhe reasons stated above, this petition staads disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t-C^6"' -A ' ^-