The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) NO.33262 of 2024 Sujana Rout & Petitioner Mr. R.N. Nayak, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others & Opp. Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. ORDER 17.10.2025
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court issue a writ of may graciously be pleased to mandamus or any other writ directing the opposite parties particularly to the Opp. Party No.1 and Opp. Party No.2; i. To release the statutory interest @ 7% for the delayed payment of the Gratuity amount of Rs. from 01.11.2017 the period 10,46,826/- (admissible due date) to 22.02.2022 (date of actual release of gratuity vide Annexure-4); for (ii) To release the settled admissible interest @ 9% on the unpaid pension of Rs.4,43,014/- for the period from 01.11.2016 (admissible due date) to 22.02.2022 (date of actual release of pension vide Annexure-4); (iii)To release the settled admissible interest @9% on the unpaid unutilised leave salary for the period from 01.11.2016 (due date) to 15.09.2021 (date of actual release of the unutilised leave salary vide Annexure- 7) iv. And to pass any other order / orders, issue any other direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for ends of justice; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016, but without any rhyme and reason and in absence of any proceeding pending against the Petitioner, his pensionary benefits were never released within a reasonable time period.
Legal Reasoning
4.1.It is contended that the gratuity amount amounting to Rs.10,46,846/- was released on 22.02.2022 and similarly, the pension amount as due and admissible w.e.f 01.11.2016 was released on 22.02.2022 amounting to Rs.4,43,014/- vide Annexure-4. 4.2. It is contended that unutilized leave salary for the period from 01.11.2016 also was released in favour of the Petitioner on 15.09.2021 vide Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that since without any fault on the part of the Petitioner, the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner were not released within a reasonable time period and the same was released around 5 years after his retirement, Petitioner not only became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of interest @7% p.a. on his gratuity amount in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 49(5) of the OCS Page 2 of 7 (Pension) Rules, 1992, but also he is entitled to get the benefit of interest @9% per annum on his arrear pension amount and the unutilized leave salary. 4.3. It is also contended that claiming interest on such delayed payment of the pensionary benefits, Petitioner though approached the competent authority, but no action when was taken, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.20813 of 2023. 4.4. It is contended that this court vide order dt.18.07.2023 under Annexure-8 while permitting the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No.1, directed Opp. No.1 to consider the claim of the Petitioner taking into account the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (D ) through LRs. Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2015) 1 OLR (SC ) 81. 4.5. It is contended that Opp. Party No.1 without proper appreciation of the Petitioner9s claim and the decision rendered in the case of D.D. Tewari as cited supra, rejected the claim vide the impugned order dt.04.11.2024 under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No.2 to calculate and disburse the interest as claimed with quashing of the impugned order under Annexure-10. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that even though Petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016, but he submitted his pension papers only on 25.10.2017 before Opp. Party No.3. Even though the Page 3 of 7 pension papers were duly forwarded to the Office of Opp. party No.2 on the very same day vide Annexure-C/3, but since Petitioner made an application for change of nomination on 16.08.2021 vide Annexure-D/3, sanction of the petitioner9s pension and gratuity as well as unutilized leave salary was delayed. However, Petitioner was sanctioned with the gratuity amount on 22.02.2022 along with arrear pension for the period 01.11.2016 on 22.02.2022 vide Annexure-4. The unutilized leave salary was also released on 15.09.2021 under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner submitted the pension papers after around 1(one) year of his retirement and he made an application to change the nomination on 16.08.2021, sanction of the retiral benefits was delayed and no fault lies with the Department. 5.1. It is also contended that during consideration of the Petitioner9s application, basing on an order passed by this Court, Petitioner was sanctioned with the benefit of 3rd RACP and accordingly her pay was revised vide order dt.23.04.2020 under Annexure-E/3. Accordingly revised pension papers were submitted for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits. However, due to COVID pandemic, the matter got delayed and after normalization of life, unutilized leave salary was sanctioned and released on 15.09.2021 and gratuity along with arrear pension were released on 22.02.2022 under Annexure-4. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that no delay can be attributed on the part of the Opp. Parties and Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of interest, which has been Page 4 of 7 rightly rejected vide order dt.04.11.2024 under Annexure- 10. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while making further submissions to the submission made by the leaned Addl. Standing Counsel, contended that pension papers though were submitted on the very date of the retirement of the Petitioner on 31.10.2016, but the same was kept pending till the amount was sanctioned vide Annexures-4 & 7. It is further contended that in view of the provision contained under Rule 49(5) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, Petitioner is entitled to get interest @7% per annum on the gratuity amount for the period of delay involved. 6.1. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tiwari, Petitioner is entitled to get interest on the arrear pension amount as well as unutilized leave salary @ 9% per annum. Rule 49(5) of the Rules OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 reads as follows: 49 (5) (a) Where the sanction of payment of gratuity is delayed for more than a year from the date is due under Sub-rules (1) or (2), as the case may be, and such delay is attributable to administrative lapses, interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum for the period beyond one year shall be payable on the amount of gratuity.= 6.2. Hon9ble Apex Court in para-3 of the judgment in the case of D.D. Tewari has held as follows: <3. xxx xxx xxx The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in the case of State of Page 5 of 7 to be distributed by Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429, wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty the Government to its employees on their retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned.= 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner while continuing in service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2016. It is not disputed that the gratuity amount was released in favour of the Petitioner amounting to Rs.10,46,826/- on 22.02.2022. It is also not disputed that arrear pension of the Petitioner amounting to Rs.4,43,014/- was released on 22.02.2022 and the unutilized leave salary on 15.09.2021. 7.1. Even if taking the date of submission of the pension papers as 25.10.2017 and the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is the view of this Court that sanction of gratuity and pension was delayed by around 5 years and unutilized leave salary by around 4 years. Taking into account the interest to be payable on the gratuity amount @7% so provided under Rule 49(5) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and @ 6% per annum on the arrear pension and unutilized leave salary, the total interest claim will barely come around Rs.5,00,000/-. 7.2. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the rival Page 6 of 7 stand taken, this Court held the Petitioner entitled to get interest of Rs.3,00,000/- in total and directs Opp. Party No.2 to release a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the Petitioner towards interest within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision
7.3. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 28-Oct-2025 18:30:49 Page 7 of 7