JUDGMENT S.B. Shukre, J. (Oral) - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bahujan Vikas Education Society & Anr. vs. Mrs. Vidya Devi & Ors. - 2006 LAB I.C. 2857 submits that unless there is an express order to pay interest on interest, the executing Court, in an application filed under Section 31 of the Employees'' Compensation Act, 1923 cannot reach a new conclusion that the interest is required to be paid on the interest. He points out from the order of this Court dated 03/09/2015 passed in First Appeal No.75/2005 whereby the order granting compensation, dated 04/10/2004, passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act was modified and this Court did not expressly direct the employers/petitioners to pay the interest on interest. He has further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the principal amount was deposited in this Court by the Insurance Company on 10/01/2005 and later on in the same month, it was also permitted to be withdrawn and indeed withdrawn by the employee. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if at all any interest was to be paid as per the direction of the Court, it was to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 07/08/1997 till the date of realization, which was the date of deposit i.e. 10/01/2005. He further submits that calculated in this manner, the interest payable by the employer comes to Rs. 82,173/-, which has been already paid by the employer to the employee in the year 2015. 3. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 relying upon the 5 Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India - (2006) 8 SCC 457 submits that when only principal amount is deposited and not the interest payable on it as per the express direction of the Court, unpaid interest till the time it remains unpaid becomes part of the principal amount and thereby it attracts further interest at the same rate as determined by the Court granting compensation. He further submits that this has been rightly considered by the learned Commissioner in passing the impugned order. 4. He further submits that this has been rightly considered by the learned Commissioner in passing the impugned order. 4. So far as the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bahujan Vikas Education Society (supra) is concerned, I am of the opinion that it has no application to the facts of the instant case for the reason that this is not a case wherein there is no order expressly passed by the Court granting compensation directing payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum for a certain period of time. About the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), I must say, it squarely covers the issue involved in this case. The reason being that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in such cases, unpaid interest till the time it remains unpaid, becomes part of the principal amount and, therefore, the principal amount so newly formed can also attract further interest at the same rate, as has been fixed by the Court granting compensation. This is what has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court as a principle of general application thereby meaning that there could be some exceptional circumstances, wherein a departure from the general principle is permissible. But, that exception has to be seen to be made out in the matter granting compensation itself. However, no such exception has been provided in the order granting compensation. It would then follow that the unpaid interest in the present case having merged with the principal amount and becoming a new principal amount would attract interest on it at the rate of 12% per annum till the amount of interest remained unpaid. 5. The impugned order shows that by applying this principal of law that the learned Commissioner has found that an amount of Rs. 1,18,224/- is due against the petitioners and, accordingly, he has directed to issue recovery certificate. I do not see any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. The amount deposited in this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No.1. As submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that after such withdrawal, there shall remain no further outstanding against the petitioners. 7. There is no merit in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. The amount deposited in this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No.1. As submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that after such withdrawal, there shall remain no further outstanding against the petitioners. 7. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.