10. Counsel for the petitioner contended that so far as the liability of the petitioner is concerned, it would be only to the extent of sharing of the assets of the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T between the two States which is at the ratio of 18 : 82 and 26.49 : 73.31. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is hard to accept for the reason that subsequent to the dissolving of MPSRTC in the State of Chhattisgarh, assets and liabilities have been inherited by the petitioner Corporation and further the delinquent employee by virtue of the reinstatement under the provisions of 65(3) of MPIR Act was discharging his duties under the petitioner Corporation. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the notification dated 16.02.2016 which was a clarification notification issued by the CIDC wherein they had categorically clarified the intention of receiving the assets, liabilities, rights and employees mentioned in the notification to be deemed the employees of CIDC w.e.f. 31.02.2002 on wards. If the intention of the Corporation is taken into account by virtue of the said notification, it clearly reflects that it has taken the responsibility of the entire liabilities which would fall in respect of the employees after 31.12.2002. 11. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court decided on 16.07.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 419 of 2011 and other Bunch of writ petitions is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was in respect of the benefit which an employee was to accrue under the EDF (Employees Deposit Fund) Scheme. So far as the consequential order after the termination order being set aside is concerned, it is the Corporation under whom the employee had last worked will be responsible. If at all if there has to be any sharing, the liability which
