ORDER 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. 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 of interest beyond the date of superannuation or at best six months thereafter even though refunds are being made or are to be made decades after superannuation. Thus, the attempt of the Corporation is of making the Scheme less favourable to the employees than the 1952 Scheme. It is obviously being made disadvantageous to the employees contrary to the spirit of Section-17 of the Act. 6. Thus, the attempt of the Corporation is of making the Scheme less favourable to the employees than the 1952 Scheme. It is obviously being made disadvantageous to the employees contrary to the spirit of Section-17 of the Act. 6. Another important aspect of the matter that has to be kept in mind is that the Corporation having formulated the Scheme of contributory provident fund instead of General Provident Fund, there is no Scheme for payment of pension upon superannuation. The employees for long period after superannuation have to depend upon basically the limited gratuity and the CPF accumulations alone. 7. I may at this stage itself notice that had the Corporation conducted its business in a commercially prudent manner, this dispute would not have arisen because no sooner an employee would superannuate the CPF accumulations in his account would have been refunded to him and there would have been no cause for any interest or compensation for delayed refund thereof. Unfortunately, that has not so happened. For more than last two decades the Corporation conducted itself in a manner leading it into financial dole-drums where it could not even meet its daily liabilities what to talk of payment of retiral dues of its employees. The result is for decades employees were not paid their wages. Employees superannuated without wages or without retrial dues. Many died penniless without any relief and now when the CPF accumulations are to be paid in stages, they are being told-Sorry, the refunds were delayed by decades but we will not compensate you for the delay in any manner. Basically, it is this stand which is up for consideration and scrutiny before this Court. Especially, as it cannot be denied that the Corporation is a State Corporation and State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution being a State instrumentality. In order to examine the position one has to first look to the admitted facts in these regards. 8. It appears that as originally enacted the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Cumulative Provident Fund Scheme, 1960, inter alia, had Rule-20(b) (iv) which provided for payment of interest on the accumulations of CPF up to the month preceding the date of payment or up to six months after the month when payment was due, whichever was earlier. 8. It appears that as originally enacted the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Cumulative Provident Fund Scheme, 1960, inter alia, had Rule-20(b) (iv) which provided for payment of interest on the accumulations of CPF up to the month preceding the date of payment or up to six months after the month when payment was due, whichever was earlier. In other words, payment of interest was restricted to a maximum of six months after it was due for payment, i.e., after an employee superannuate. As noticed earlier, no one had quarrel with this provision so long as the Corporation promptly refunded the CPF accumulations upon it becoming due for refund. 9. Apparently, considering that the refunds were being unusually delayed because of paucity of funds with the Corporation, the Board of Trustees of the Corporation CPF Scheme, while sanctioning part payment of CPF accumulations, decided that interest would be paid up to the month preceding the payment. The restriction of maximum period of six months for payment of interest was to be ignored. This would be evident from Memo No.501 dated 07thof February, 2006 of the Corporation, as circulated to all its offices, which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and the amended provision of Rule-20(b) (iv) is to be found in Annexure-12 series to the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners. 10. Again, the Board of Trustees of the Board’s CPF Scheme in their 55thmeeting dated 24.06.2008 resolved that earlier interest on CPF accumulations was payable only up to the date of retirement. They decided to change it with effect from 01.04.1998 making it payable up to the date of payment. This is evident from office order no.3 dated 02.01.2009, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Till this time the superannuated or superannuating employees had no problem for at least they hoped of getting interest on the delayed refund of their CPF accumulations which was of some consequence and solace. 11. It appears that in the 56thmeeting of the Board of Trustees of the Corporation’s CPF Scheme dated 26.02.2009 the proceedings of the 55thmeeting were approved. But, when the 57th meeting of the Board of Trustees was held on 07.10.2009, while approving the proceedings of 56thmeeting, they restricted the payment of interest on CPF accumulations up to the date of retirement only thereby taking away the liability to pay the interest on delayed refunds. But, when the 57th meeting of the Board of Trustees was held on 07.10.2009, while approving the proceedings of 56thmeeting, they restricted the payment of interest on CPF accumulations up to the date of retirement only thereby taking away the liability to pay the interest on delayed refunds. This is evident from office order no.284 dated 09.04.2010 as circulated under Memo No.2252 dated 09.04.2010, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition and impugned in these proceedings. 12. It appears that no sooner this office order was issued the employees filed representations to the Corporation and Board of Trustees of the Corporation’s CPF Scheme, inter alia, drawing their attention that denial of interest on such long delay of refund of CPF accumulations would not only be arbitrary it would be in conflict with paragraph-60 of 1952 Scheme and would make the conditions of the Corporation Scheme less favourable to the employees. The exemption granted under Section-17 of the Act would then be liable to be withdrawn. When there was no response it seems that a writ petition was filed by Krishna Mohan Shastri and others before this Court, being C.W.J.C. No.12266 of 2010 challenging this decision. This Court without deciding the issues disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 02.08.2010 in the following terms:- “6. Instead of myself going into the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by the Board of Trustees on 7.10.2009 as also the fact whether the office order dated 2.1.2009, Annexure-1 has been modified in the light of the subsequent decision of the Board of Trustees dated 7.10.2009, Annexure-2, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Administrator-cum-Chairman of the Board of Trustees to consider and dispose of the representation of petitioner no.1 dated 5.5.2010, Annexure-5 requesting the Corporation to pay interest over the Contributory Provident Fund amount to the employees of the Corporation until the date of payment and not till the date of retirement in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Administrator.” 13. It is under the said circumstances the representation came to be disposed of by the Administrator of the Corporation whose decision was circulated under Memo No.7907 dated 22.12.2010, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition and is impugned. It is under the said circumstances the representation came to be disposed of by the Administrator of the Corporation whose decision was circulated under Memo No.7907 dated 22.12.2010, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition and is impugned. By this order, the Administrator has reverted to the original Rule-20 (b) (iv) and held that interest would be payable up to the month preceding the payment of CPF accumulations or six months from its due date, whichever is earlier. Thus, effectively denying the employees any compensation by way of interest on delayed refunds. It is because of this that this Annexure-3 along with Annexure-2, as noticed above, is under challenge. 14. This vacillating stand, it is rightly submitted, is because at times the Board of Trustees genuinely sympathized with the cause of employees but later their financial status gained over their sympathy forcing them to change their views. They were caught between the devil and the deep sea. 15. I may here notice another event that was taken place simultaneously. As noticed earlier, over 2½ decades back the Corporation had become financially sick which led to a lot of litigations. The matter travelled to the Apex Court either in appeal or by writ petitions filed directly there. While the matter was pending, the problem was compounded by bifurcation of the State of Bihar with effect from 15.11.2000 and formation of State of Jharkhand. There arose serious dispute between the two States as regard division of assets and liabilities and division of service cadre etc. It appears that the Apex Court appointed an Arbitrator in the matter. Retired Judge of Supreme Court Justice Saghir Ahmad was made the one Arbitral Tribunal who examined the matter and submitted his award to the Apex Court in the pending proceedings in the year 2008 itself, which report was considered by the Apex Court, inter lia, in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Suraj Deo Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7290 of 1994 by order dated 12.08.2008, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The arbitral report was accepted. The matter again came up before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.337 of 2001 (B.S.R.T.C. Ret./Deceased Emp. Morcha & Ors. Vs. Suraj Deo Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7290 of 1994 by order dated 12.08.2008, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The arbitral report was accepted. The matter again came up before the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.337 of 2001 (B.S.R.T.C. Ret./Deceased Emp. Morcha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) and again while disposing of the matter by order dated 24.08.2011 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) along with Civil Appeal No.7290 of 1994, the Apex Court passed orders upon undertaking by the counsel for the Corporation to clear dues of the employees both retired and serving including CPF dues fully by March 31, 2012. 16. The reason why this Court referred to these proceedings is because the learned counsel for the Corporation several times submitted that there was no order of the Apex Court or no recommendation in the arbitral award for payment of interest on delayed refund CPF accumulations. Actually, meaning thereby, the Apex Court did not pass orders for payment of interest on delayed refunds. This Court asked the learned counsel to point out where was any such finding or direction given. None could be shown. The arbitral award and the order of the Apex Court did not consider or speak about this matter at all. Thus, it is wrong on the part of the Corporation to submit that by virtue of the order of the Apex Court or the arbitral award they are not bound to pay interest on delayed refund of CPF accumulations. 17. I may notice here that while the arbitral award was being prepared, which was finally submitted in 2008 to the Apex Court, as noticed earlier, Corporation and the Board of Trustees of the Corporation CPF Scheme had already resolved to give interest on delayed payment of CPF accumulations with effect from 01.04.1998 and there was no dispute in that regard. Board and Trustees of the CPF scheme changed these decisions late in the year 2009, as evident from Annexure-2. 18. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, in my view, the change in stand of the Board or for that matter Board of Trustees of the CPF Scheme of the Board leading to denial of payment of interest on delayed refund of CPF accumulations is, prima facie, arbitrary if not illegal. 18. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, in my view, the change in stand of the Board or for that matter Board of Trustees of the CPF Scheme of the Board leading to denial of payment of interest on delayed refund of CPF accumulations is, prima facie, arbitrary if not illegal. It would be in conflict with paragraph-60 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 making the Corporation’s CPF Scheme 1960 less favourable to its employees and would thus be contrary to the exemption Clauses of Section-17 of the Act. But, I deem it not necessary to finally decide this issue. Even if I assume that the Scheme provide for payment of interest only up to the date of superannuation or six months thereafter, this would be valid if payments were duly made within due time. In normal circumstances, there could be no exception to it. But, as noticed above, the circumstances which emanate now are far from normal. Refund of CPF accumulations have been delayed by decades. Virtually, that is the only sustenance which a retired employee get where there is no provision for pension. In such circumstances, to say that because Corporation had no money to pay and for Corporation’s default the employee should suffer would be highly unreasonable. It is akin to say that due to default of Corporation the right of the employees of Corporation is defeated. That is not acceptable. Employees were not at fault. Their life saving was with the Corporation. In the twilight of their life they cannot be left high and dry with no compensation for delayed refund. Corporation being State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution it must act fairly and reasonably. 19. Here, the facts are clear that the Corporation is in default. The Corporation is unable to pay yet then can the Corporation take advantage of its own default to defeat the legitimate claims and the right of retired employees. The answer would no. It is well settled principle of law that no person can take advantage of his own default to the detriment of others. The Corporation is unable to pay yet then can the Corporation take advantage of its own default to defeat the legitimate claims and the right of retired employees. The answer would no. It is well settled principle of law that no person can take advantage of his own default to the detriment of others. I can usefully quote what Chief Justice Chagla said in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited -Versus- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, AIR 1954 Bombay 232 : “But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under sub-section (2) of S 24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default. It is an elementary principle of law that no person - we take it that the Income-tax Department is included in that definition - can put forward his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A person cannot say that the party claiming the right is deprived of that right because “I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default.” 20. Looked at another angle the only little compensation which petitioners are entitled for this inordinate delay in refund of their CPF accumulations is payment of interest. For example, if a retired employee, upon retiring in the year 1998, was to receive Rs.2 lacs, he is now told by the Corporation that I will discharge this liability by paying you a sum of Rs.2 lacs in the year 2010, i.e., after 12 years. Would it be just? The money value would have eroded. This capital of Rs.2 lacs in the span of 12 years. That erosion can only be made up by compensation in the shape of interest for the delayed refund. One must not forget that we are dealing with a State instrumentality in a welfare State. State and its instrumentalities must find ways and means to do what is just and fair to the citizens and its employees. It cannot express financial inability and run away from its legal obligation to compensate. 21. One must not forget that we are dealing with a State instrumentality in a welfare State. State and its instrumentalities must find ways and means to do what is just and fair to the citizens and its employees. It cannot express financial inability and run away from its legal obligation to compensate. 21. It may also be noted that here that petitioners have clearly averred and it has not been denied by the Corporation that substantial number of employees, who had earlier approached this Court for payment of their retirement dues pursuant to various orders of this Court, have been refunded their CPF accumulations with interest up to date notwithstanding their date of superannuation. Denying petitioners similar treatment would not be proper. 22. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the retired employees have a right to claim and receive interest on delayed refund of their CPF accumulations. Interest would be the same as would be payable on the CPF accumulations for the period from when it was due up to the month preceding the date when payments are actually made. As noted above, before the Apex Court the Corporation had undertaken to clear all the dues by 31stof March, 2012, we are now in March, 2013. In such circumstances, I direct the Corporation to refund the CPF accumulations of all the retired employees in full with interest as above within a period of three months from today. The responsibility of which would be on the Administrator of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation as appointed by the State Government. 23. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.