The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) NO.78 OF 2014 Subash Chandra Das …. Petitioner Mr.D.R.Pattnaik, Adv. -versus- Collector, Jajpur & ors. …. Opposite Parties
Decision
Order No. 06. 1. 2. ORDER 17.1.2023 Heard learned counsel for the Parties. It is a strange case involving a direction for grant of admissible pension in favour of the Petitioner, who has been stated to be superannuated since 30.4.2013. This case was brought when the Tribunal was in existence and now is taken up for hearing on transfer of the same to this Court for appropriate disposal. 3. There have been several proceedings already involving this case. In the order dated 24.6.2022 this Court has come to observe as follows :- “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No.4-Block Development Officer, Bari dated 18.05.2022 has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has tried to obtain instruction from the petitioner who due to ill health is unable to come physically to meet Page 1 of 6 // 2 // the learned counsel. It is further submitted that the wife of the petitioner has instructed the learned counsel that the petitioner is yet to get the final pension. 4. Relevant portion of para-8 of the counter affidavit dated 18.05.2022 sworn to by the Block Development Officer, Bari states the following:- “xxx xxx xxx service in his “It is humbly submitted that the final pension paper of the petitioner could not processed at this level due in various to gaps/breaks establishments/offices where he had served previously. After scrutiny of Original Service Book of the petitioner, gap/break in his service has been extracted and the gap/break so extracted from his Original Service Book has been communicated to concerned Establishments/Offices for verification vide office of the deponent Letter No.1755 dtd. 11.05.2022 for verification and regularization of his service at their end. The gap/break in his service at this regularized after regularization of services at other retired on the petitioner has stations superannuation while on the posted strength of the office of the deponent.” office will as be 5. The Block Development Officer, Bari shall prepare a list of officers concerned and their designations dealing with the issue of regularization of the Service Book of the petitioner indicating the details as to how many days each Officer has detained the file and the reasons of such detention. 6. The copy of the affidavit of B.D.O, Bari before being filed before this Court shall, be vetted by the higher authority/ authority as to whether there was any dereliction of duty in regularizing the services of the petitioner and the learned AGA shall apprise this Court by the next date. 7. As prayed for by the learned AGA, list on 14.07.2022. The matter was again taken up on 14.7.2022 and this Court passed the following order :- “I.A. No.679 of 2022 & WPC(OAC) No.78 of 2014 Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the earlier order dated 24.06.2022 to submit that the opposite party-State have not taken steps pursuant to the said order. 3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that I.A. No.679 of 2022 has been e-filed on 13.07.2022, in support thereof he files the hard copy, which is taken on record. Copy of the I.A. is served on the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today. 4. A prayer is made in the I.A. for grant of two months time to take steps in terms of the order dated 24.06.2022. It is noticed that the B.D.O., Bari at para-3 of the I.A. has quoted the para-5 of the order dated 24.06.2022. Para-8 of the order dated 24.06.2022 provides the following:- “It is clarified that pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the authorities in any manner to take appropriate action in accordance with law for redressal of grievances of the petitioner.” 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State shall obtain upto- date instruction in terms of the order dated 24.06.2022 and the BDO is granted six weeks time to take steps and file affidavit in terms of the order dated 24.06.2022. 6. As prayed for by the opposite parties, list on 12th September, 2022.” 4. Though there has been submission on the delay in releasing of the final pension of the Petitioner on account of different involvements, this Court finds, there is no satisfactory ground to find that a person superannuated in April, 2013 is waiting for nearly a decade to get his admissible pension, which undisputedly reached as his personal property. This Court finds no reasonable explanation in such long delay. Reasoning delay in grant of final decision on the ground of no updation of Service Book definitely occurred for lapse of the Department and in no way, the responsibility of the retired Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Employee. System in achieving updation of Service Book of a Person on his transfer or promotion needs to be strengthened. Undisputedly, the Petitioner is in receipt of provisional pension with effect from 1.5.2013. There is no dispute that the provisional pension is always at a lower side. For a decade delay in release of the final pension to an employee, this Court finds, there is serious lapse in working out of the pension of the Petitioner. There has been reason in delay in preparation of Service Book of the Petitioner. For the opinion of this Court, preparation of Service Book was not in the hand of the employee. Even though there have been several transfers of the Petitioner, it becomes the responsibility of the Employer ultimately to update the Service Book of the Employee. In any case there cannot any delay in finalizing the final pension of the Petitioner on these flimsy grounds. 5. Considering there is gross delay and enumerable sufferings to the Petitioner for compelling him to receive the lower rate of pension even after ten years of superannuation, this Court while allowing the Writ Petition directs the Competent Authority to find if the pension aspect of the Petitioner is not finalized in the meantime, let there be finalisation of the final pension of the Petitioner at least within a period of one month, if necessary by utilizing Special Messenger involving all Offices concerned in updating the Service Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Book of the Petitioner. Considering there is huge delay and there is wrongful detention of the entitlements of a retired Employee, while directing the Competent Authority to conclude the final pension aspect at least within one month, for there is lackadaisical attitude of the Public Authority involving finalisation of pension of a retired employee for such long period, this Court directs for calculation of the arrear on account of entitlement of the Petitioner on final pension within seven days of updation of Service Book involved and release of the same in favour of the Petitioner within seven days thereafter. 6. Taking into account the Petitioner’s suffering for ten years for no fault of him, this Court observes, the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum all through meaning thereby from the date of entitlement till the date of release in the given time indicated herein above. It is made clear that in the event the Petitioner is not paid with arrear and final pension within the prescribed period, he will be entitled to interest @ 10% all through. The interest aspect shall be calculated within further seven days of determination of the final pension as well as arrear and be released within further seven days. In the event there is unnecessary burdening on the State Exchequer for the delayed action of the Officers involved, it may be open to the State Authorities to trace such Officers to initiate appropriate action against such the Officers Page 5 of 6 // 6 // and recover the interest component from such Officers but after providing them opportunity to contest. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above order. (Biswanath Rath) Judge M.K.Rou Page 6 of 6