JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this civil revision the Judgment debtor-Petitioner has challenged the Order Dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur in Execution Proceeding No. 3 of 2003 filed by Opp. Party No. 1 decree holder. By the impugned order the decree holder was directed to file next step for execution of the decree. 2. The facts as narrated in the revision are as follows: Opp. Party No. 1 as Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1985 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur for declaring that the premature retirement order passed by the Defendant was void & illegal & he was entitled to uninterrupted service with full back wages. The said suit was decreed by the Learned Civil Judge declaring the premature retirement of the Plaintiff vide Order Dated 31.12.1984 as void & illegal & permanently restraining the Defendants from giving effect to the said order It was further declared therein that the Plaintiff still continued to be in uninterrupted service & was entitled to full back wages, Against the said Judgment & decree, the Defendants preferred Title Appeal No. 71 of 1988 before the Learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Ganjam who, vide Judgment dated 12.5.1989 allowed the appeal & reversed the Judgment & decree of the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the Plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No. 208 of 1989 before this Court. This Court on 16 8 2002 set aside the Judgment & decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court & confirmed that of the Trial Court. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the execution case. He computed his claim amounting to Rs. 12,22,497 plus Rs. 2,20,250 towards interest at the rate of 12 % per annum calculated upto 31 12 2002 plus cost of the suit. The Judgment debtor filed its objection. The decree holder filed a revised calculation sheet of his claim amounting to Rs. 15,70,429. To the said calculation of the decree holder, the Judgment debtor filed counter along with a calculation sheet. It admitted that the decree holder was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,79,199 out of which Rs. 63,059 had already been paid to the decree holder. Out of the rest amount of Rs. 2 16,141 a sum of Rs. 15,70,429. To the said calculation of the decree holder, the Judgment debtor filed counter along with a calculation sheet. It admitted that the decree holder was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,79,199 out of which Rs. 63,059 had already been paid to the decree holder. Out of the rest amount of Rs. 2 16,141 a sum of Rs. 26,282 was required to be deposited towards the Provident Fund in order to regularize the Employees' Provident Fund account of the decree holder. Therefore, the decree holder was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,89,859. The Judgment debtor conceded to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,89,859 in ten equal installments, each installment being payable at an interval of two months. The decree holder being present in the Court agreed to receive the said amount without foregoing his claim as per the decree. Since the Judgment debtor did not pay the amount as per the decree, the executing Court directed the decree holder to file next step for execution of the decree. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision by the Judgment debtor. 3. While the Learned Counsel for the Judgment debtor-Petitioner submitted that during pendency of the civil revision, the Petitioner has paid some amount in pursuance of the direction of this Court, he contended that there being no direction in the decree to pay interest on the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, the decree holder is not entitled to interest on the said, amount. The executing Court, however, accepted the calculation sheet filed by the decree holder. Therefore, the same is liable to set aside as the executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree. 4. Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 1 decree holder submitted that since the premature retirement order passed by the authority was void & illegal, the decree holder was entitled to uninterrupted service with full back wages. The decree holder calculated the back wages, CPF contribution, consequential benefits, arrear A.D.A, Surrender Leave Salary, interest on the aforesaid amount, house rent allowance, etc. & also the amount of gratuity & the interest payable on the gratuity, Accordingly, he filed a calculation sheet before the executing Court & the Judgment debtor also filed another calculation sheet before the executing Court on 11.3.2003, wherein it was only shown that the decree holder was entitled to Rs. 2,79,199. & also the amount of gratuity & the interest payable on the gratuity, Accordingly, he filed a calculation sheet before the executing Court & the Judgment debtor also filed another calculation sheet before the executing Court on 11.3.2003, wherein it was only shown that the decree holder was entitled to Rs. 2,79,199. From the above calculation sheet filed by the Judgment debtor, the executing Court held that the calculation sheet filed by the decree holder was correct & the meager sum offered by the Judgment debtor in his calculation sheet & that too to be paid in 20 monthly installments was illegal, perverse & unacceptable. Since the executing Court passed a reasoned order, the same need not be interfered with. 5. After perusal of both the calculation sheets when this Court asked the Petitioner as to how the figures mentioned in the calculation sheet are correct, he was not able to explain the same. 6. From the decree, it is crystal clear that the Plaintiff is entitled to get all back wages & consequential service benefits till his retirement. After retirement, the Plaintiff is also entitled to get the pensionary benefit. The post retirement benefits are benevolent in nature. No interpretation is possible where a benevolent provision would be defeated. After making the payment a condition of service, employer becomes a trustee in respect of the sum due & it has to assist the employee to get it as early as possible so that the employee utilizes the same in post retirement period. 7. Admittedly, both parties have filed their respective calculation sheets. Whether the said calculations are in accordance with the decree or not, is to be examined by the executing Court. 8. Law is well settled that if the employer withholds pension amount then the employee is entitled to interest on the said amount & payment of interest on the pension amount is justified as the pensioner is being harassed by not receiving his pension after retirement. In the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court has held as under: Normally, this Court as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12% on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case. 9. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court has held as under: Normally, this Court as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12% on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case. 9. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai Patel reported in AIR 2001 SC 1100 the Apex Court has held that interest on the withheld amount is to be granted by the Court for the delay in making payment of the benefits due to the applicant. 10. In the present case, the decree holder has been deprived of the force of the decree since 1988, i.e., the year when the decree was passed by the Trial Court. The said 4ecree was confirmed by this Court in the Second Appeal in the year 2002. Till date, the Judgment debtor has not fulfilled the claims decreed in the suit. Therefore, without any further delay, this Court directs both the parties to appear before the executing Court on 7.12.2009 & on the said date the Judgment debtor will file a better calculation sheet towards back wages of the decree holder till the date of his retirement with all consequential revised scale of pay & benefits & post retirement benefits thereof. Since the authority has not paid the dues in spite of the decree passed by this Court in the Second Appeal in the year 2002 till date, the retired employee is entitled to interest on the said amount of pension due to the negligence in payment by the employer. 11. Therefore, considering the above facts & circumstances of the case & the rate of interest given by the bank, this Court feels it proper to grant interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the delay in making payment of pension from the date of the decree till the payment is made & it is so directed. 12. With the above observation & direction, the Civil Revision is disposed of. No costs.