JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Petitioner is a doctor. In the year 1962 he joined Government service as Assistant Surgeon. In December, 1962 he was selected and appointed as a Demonstrator in Pathology in S.C.S. Medical College, Cuttack. While working so, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the year 1963. In the year 1978-79 he went to London for specialized training in Cancer Research and Treatment. After returning to India, he was posted at Regional Centre for Cancer Research and Treatment, hereinafter to be referred to as 'RCCRT', in short, as Assistant Professor of Pathology. In the year 1985 he became an Associate Professor and once again transferred to S.C.S. Medical College, Cuttack. In the 1 year 1986 he was transferred back to RCCRT as his services were found more necessary in the said institution. By notification dated 12th September, 1990 issued by the Government of Orissa, Family Welfare Department, the Petitioner was permanently absorbed in RCCRT with effect from 24th September, 1990. On attaining the age of superannuation, the Petitioner while holding the post of Director, RCCRT retired on 30th September, 1995. It is stated that the Petitioner's service was all along exemplary and he had earned many a laurels for his devotion and work done in Cancer Research. In 1996 the Accountant General of Orissa sent the service book of the Petitioner to the Government of Orissa, Health and Family Welfare Department for calculation of his pension and other retiral benefits. It is alleged that due to utter negligence of the authorities of the Government of Orissa, the service book of the Petitioner was misplaced. Having no other way, the Petitioner submitted his pension papers without the original service book on 29th October, 2003. The pension papers were sent to the Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack by the Director, RCCRT on 6.11.2003. As no action was taken for sanction and disbursement of pension, the Petitioner had to run from pillar to post and ultimately approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties: ...to release the retiral benefits such as Gratuity, Surrendered Leave Salary etc. and arrear pension from the date of superannuation, i.e., 30.9.1995 and for payment of regular pension immediately along with interest from 1995 till actual payment. 2. and arrear pension from the date of superannuation, i.e., 30.9.1995 and for payment of regular pension immediately along with interest from 1995 till actual payment. 2. After receiving notice from this Court, the Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack with utmost promptitude, which he was not doing for last eleven years, forwarded the pension papers to the Director, Medical Education and Training on 22.11.2004. The Director also forwarded the pension papers to the Government in Health and Family Welfare Department on 6.12.2004 and provisional pension was sanctioned by the Government on 30.12.2004 and necessary instructions were issued to the Accountant-General of Orissa. Thereafter, on 17.2.2005 the Government issued letters to the Accountant General of Orissa to release the pension and other retirement benefits of the Petitioner. The pension of the Petitioner was finally sanctioned by the Opposite Parties on 14.3.2005 along with gratuity and other retirement benefits, which were disbursed in favour of the Petitioner on 12.7.2005. 3. The scenario of facts and events narrated above thus reveal that major part of the grievance of the Petitioner has already been mitigated. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, in course of hearing strenuously submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to interest right from 30.9.1995 when he was superannuated till 12.7.2005, the date when pension was released more so, because delay was caused due to deliberate laches and inaction of the Opposite Parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, took the stand that no deliberate laches could be attributed to the Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack or to any other authority of the State. According to the Learned Counsel for the State, the Petitioner though retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.1995, he submitted the pension papers before Opposite Party No. 4 only on 29.10.2003, that too incomplete. On 7.11.2003 Opposite Party No. 3, i.e., Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack returned the pension papers to the Petitioner as the same were incomplete and were not in accordance with the requirement of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977. It is forcefully submitted that the Petitioner submitted complete pension papers only on 28.10.2004. After verification and observing all paraphernalia, the pension papers of the Petitioner including his last pay certificate, duplicate service book, etc. were sent by Opposite Party No. 3 on 27.11.2004 to the Health and Family Welfare Department, which were received on 8.12.2004. It is forcefully submitted that the Petitioner submitted complete pension papers only on 28.10.2004. After verification and observing all paraphernalia, the pension papers of the Petitioner including his last pay certificate, duplicate service book, etc. were sent by Opposite Party No. 3 on 27.11.2004 to the Health and Family Welfare Department, which were received on 8.12.2004. In view of the fact that the original service book of the Petitioner was missing and could not be readily traced out as the Petitioner had a chequered service career having been transferred from one place to another in order to avoid prejudice and harassment to the Petitioner, the Government by Order Dated 13.12.2004 sanctioned provisional pension in his favour and instructed Opposite Party No. 3, Principal S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack to take appropriate action to draw and disburse the provisional pension. In the meanwhile steps were taken to trace out the original service book. On 14.4.2005, the Accountant General of Orissa issued authority slip in favour of the Petitioner with copy to the Special Treasury, Cuttack for release of final pension and gratuity. Further, vide letter dated 13.6.2005 necessary communication was issued by the Government for drawal of his unutilized leave salary for 225 days after necessary sanction. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, Learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the allegation of delay in the matter of payment of pension dues is not acceptable. In fact, the Principal of S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack and the Government in Health Department took utmost care to see that the pension dues of the Petitioner were released and he was not subjected to any harassment. In short, he submitted that the allegations made by the Petitioner are not correct and as such the Petitioner is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 5. It is no more res integra that pension and gratuity are no longer a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but are valuable rights and properties of the retired employees in the hands of the Government. Any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof, must be visited with penalty as well as interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The liability to pay interest on these dues at current market rate commences after expiry of two months from the date of retirement. (see State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, ). 6. Any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof, must be visited with penalty as well as interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The liability to pay interest on these dues at current market rate commences after expiry of two months from the date of retirement. (see State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, ). 6. A perusal of different Acts and Rules framed for payment of pension, gratuity and other retirement dues gives an impression that proceedings should be initiated and steps should be taken at least one year in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules, instructions are followed strictly, much of the harassment mitigated to the persons who have served the State Government for the best part of their life, can come to an end and also much of the litigations can be avoided. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. The Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and Another clearly held that the pension papers should be prepared by compilation of data two years before retirement and that consolidated amount of interest should be granted for delay. 7. In the touchstone of the aforesaid legal proposition, this Court scans through the relevant dates so as to ascertain as to whether there was any inordinate delay. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, delay was caused due to the laches of the Government and the matter was kept dormant, right from 1995 when the Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation, till 12.7.2005, i.e., when amounts were paid. It is also submitted that there was no reason for such delay. On the other hand, according to the Learned Counsel for the State, delay was caused due to the laches of the Petitioner, inasmuch as though he retired in 1995 he did not submit the pension papers till 2003. Even in 2003, pension papers submitted by him were incomplete and not in accordance with the requirement of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977. On being reminded several occasions, he submitted the full pension papers only on 28th October, 2004. The matter was processed and to avoid harassment, immediate steps were taken for sanction of provisional pension in. November 2004 and final pension along with gratuity and other dues were disbursed on 12.7.2005. On being reminded several occasions, he submitted the full pension papers only on 28th October, 2004. The matter was processed and to avoid harassment, immediate steps were taken for sanction of provisional pension in. November 2004 and final pension along with gratuity and other dues were disbursed on 12.7.2005. Thus, hardly there was any delay. 8. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it appears that the Petitioner was a Government servant. Learned Counsel for the State relying upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Rama Panigrahi v. State of Orissa, reported in 2003(I) OLR, 4381 submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable and if the Petitioner has any grievance, he should approach the State Administrative Tribunal. 9. In terms of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the Tribunal for the State had been constituted to deal with matters specified in that Act. Any dispute relating to the service was within the purview of that Tribunal. Admittedly the period of pension claimed by the Petitioner relates to the period when he was a Government employee. Thus, strictly speaking, this Court has no jurisdiction to delve into the dispute in question. That apart, as it appears, full pension of the Petitioner has been sanctioned and arrear pension coupled with gratuity and other retirement dues have already been paid. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ application merits no consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed