1. The petitioners deposited money in their single and joint accounts with Sub Post Master, Bishnah under the Monthly Income Scheme, which entitled them to interest @ 13% per annum. The money thus invested remained in deposit with the Postal Authorities, who continued reflecting interest payable thereon, in the entries made to this effect, in the Pass Books issued by the Authorities to the petitioners. 2. The deposits made by the petitioners were later found not covered by the rules, in that, the Scheme under which the money was deposited would not permit the depositors to make deposits exceeding Rs.2.04 lac in single account and Rs.4.08 lac in joint accounts. The accounts were, therefore, closed and the amount paid by way of interest, on the deposits, ordered to be recovered. 3. After closure of the Scheme, the petitioners received their money back but without any interest. 4. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court for a Command to the Postal Authorities to pay them interest on the money which remained in deposit with them, at the rate it was promised and agreed to. 5. Union-respondents contest the petitioners' Claim to interest urging that having deposited money in violation of the Scheme, which would not permit deposits more than the prescribed limit, the petitioners were not entitled to interest on the amount, which remained in deposit with them. 6. It was not disputed that the amount deposited by the petitioners in various accounts under the Monthly Income Scheme exceeded the limits prescribed for single as well as joint accounts. 7. During the course of consideration of the Petition, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issues that arise for determination in this Petition as to whether or not the petitioners were entitled to interest and if so, at what rate, stand settled by the judgment delivered by a Division bench of this Court in LPAOW No.90/2002 and that the petitioners' case, which was covered by the judgment, needed its disposal in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. The issues that arise for consideration in the Writ Petition are covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in LPAOW No. 90/2002 and no further discussion on the issue may, therefore, be necessary. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. The issues that arise for consideration in the Writ Petition are covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in LPAOW No. 90/2002 and no further discussion on the issue may, therefore, be necessary. This Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed on the basis of what was held by the Division Bench. 10. This Writ Petition accordingly succeeds and is, therefore, allowed requiring the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 13% per annum to the petitioners on the amount which was within the limit prescribed by the Scheme, till it remained in deposit with them, and @ 4.5% per annum on the amount in excess of the prescribed limit, till it was returned to the petitioners. 11. The respondents to calculate the amount payable to the petitioners, as indicated above, for its payment to them within a period of six weeks, in default whereof the petitioners would be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum.