JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a retired Deputy Manager of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. has filed this application seeking for a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to pay/release his gratuity and leave salary amount with 18% interest per annum w.e.f. 01.08.2002 and further for award of cost and damages for harassment caused to him. 2. The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Divisional Manager in the Corporation in the year 1967 and was posted at Nawarangpur Division of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to O.F.D.C. Ltd.), pursuant to which, he joined on 06.04.1967 and thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Dy. Divisional Manager in the year 1989. Thereafter on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31.07.2002 and by the time he retired from service, he was in-charge of Divisional Manager (PI) of Berhampur Division. The General Manager vide office order dated 25.02.2002 allowed the petitioner to retire from service. But the petitioner has been deprived of getting his retirement benefits such as gratuity and leave salary amount even though five years have lapsed from the date of his superannuation although there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against him. All the Divisional Managers under whom the petitioner has rendered service submitted No Dues Certificate and No Objection Certificate, but the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have withheld the retirement benefits i.e. gratuity and leave salary amount without any rhyme or rhythm. Though the petitioner moved from pillar to post, no action has been taken till date. Hence this application. 3. Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner has moved the authority several times for release of gratuity as well as leave salary towards retirement benefit admissible to him, no action has been taken and for the first time in the counter affidavit it is urged that on the basis of the internal audit report of the Corporation dated 03.05.2005, the total outstanding against the petitioner comes to Rs. 5,81,131/-, out of which Rs. 61,053.29/- has been recovered from the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs. 5,20,077.25/- has to be recovered from him. Though unutilized E.L. for Rs. 1,09,296/- and gratuity amount of Rs. 5,81,131/-, out of which Rs. 61,053.29/- has been recovered from the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs. 5,20,077.25/- has to be recovered from him. Though unutilized E.L. for Rs. 1,09,296/- and gratuity amount of Rs. 2,75,867/- were sanctioned on 15.5.2009, the same has not been paid to him as there was no final settlement of the audit report involving Rs. 5,81,131/- by the Triangular Committee in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 16071 of 2006 (Raghabananda Das v. O.F.D.C. Ltd. disposed of on 1.9.2008). It is urged that merely on the basis of the audit report, the retirement benefit cannot be withheld unless the same is determined by following due procedure of law. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay the retirement benefits such as gratuity as well as leave salary which were sanctioned vide letter dated 15.05.2009. 4. Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Sr. Counsel for the opposite party-Corporation states that admittedly the petitioner was superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.2002. But subsequently in an internal audit of the Corporation, it was found that an amount of Rs. 5,81,131/- is recoverable from the petitioner. It is stated that on the basis of the report submitted by the Chief Audit Officer on 5.3.2005, since an amount of Rs. 61,053.29 has been recovered, the balance outstanding amount of Rs. 5,20,077.25 is to be recovered from the petitioner. Admittedly the unutilized leave salary and gratuity amount has been sanctioned by the authority vide letter dated 15.05.2009, but the same has not been paid to the petitioner because of non-finalization of the audit recoverable amount as per the audit report submitted by the Chief Audit Officer on 3.5.2005. It is also admitted that the amount so recoverable pursuant to audit report has not been recovered by following due procedure of law. In any case, since the audit report came up, unless the same is finalized by the Triangular Committee in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 16071 of 2006 (Raghabananda Das v. O.F.D.C. Ltd. disposed of on 1.9.2008), the petitioner is not entitled to get such benefits. 5. In any case, since the audit report came up, unless the same is finalized by the Triangular Committee in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 16071 of 2006 (Raghabananda Das v. O.F.D.C. Ltd. disposed of on 1.9.2008), the petitioner is not entitled to get such benefits. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded, it appears that the petitioner was admittedly retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2002 and he has not been paid his retirement benefits of gratuity as well as leave salary as due and admissible to him. Though the gratuity as well as leave salary have been sanctioned vide letter dated 15.5.2009, the same have been withheld due to the fact that on the basis of the internal audit conducted by the corporation, an amount of Rs. 5,81,131/- in total recoverable from the petitioner, out of which Rs. 61,053.29 has been recovered. Therefore, the Chief Audit Officer submitted a report on 3.5.2005 showing an outstanding of Rs. 5,20,077.25. Since the Triangular Committee has not finalized the audit report involving recovery of Rs. 5,81,131/- the sanctioned amount such as gratuity as well as leave salary have not been released in favour of the petitioner and no proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner while he was in employment for recovery of outstanding dues pursuant to the report of the Chief Audit Officer dated 3.5.2005. Per contra, all the Divisional Managers, under whom the petitioner has served during his service period have submitted No Due Certificates and No Objection Certificates. Therefore, withholding the retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner such as gratuity as well as leave salary without initiating any disciplinary proceeding to determine the liability, only on the basis of the audit report after his retirement is without authority of law. More so, the ground taken that the entitlement of the petitioner such as gratuity and leave salary have been sanctioned and shall be released after final settlement of outstanding dues i.e. Rs. 5,81,131/- by the Triangular Committee in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 16071 of 2006 (Raghabananda Das v. O.F.D.C. Ltd. disposed of on 1.9.2008) is not tenable. 5,81,131/- by the Triangular Committee in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 16071 of 2006 (Raghabananda Das v. O.F.D.C. Ltd. disposed of on 1.9.2008) is not tenable. Whether the Triangular Committee has taken a decision or not is not a ground to withhold the retirement benefit of the petitioner when as per the service rule applicable to the O.F.D.C. Ltd. no disciplinary proceeding will be initiated against the petitioner after his retirement. 6. This question has already been settled by the apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, AIR 1999 SC 1841 , wherein the apex Court held that in absence of any provision, the disciplinary proceeding so initiated stands closed after retirement of the delinquent officer. In paragraph-5 of the said judgment the apex Court held as follows:- "It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation." Similar view has also been reiterated in Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, 2014 (8) SCALE 216 : (2014) 7 SCC 260 . 7. There is an amendment to the service rules of the O.F.D.C. by incorporating Rule 123-A, which came into force on 24.02.2004, therefore that amended rules has prospective effect. Since the petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2002 and the audit report was submitted on 3.5.2005, no action can be taken by the authority. Rule-123-A which has been incorporated by way of amendment w.e.f. 24.02.2004, may apply prospectively not retrospectively. 8. This question has already been raised before this Court in Sukadev Behera v. M.D. OFDC Ltd. 2008 (II) OLR 612 , wherein this Court has already held that the provision of Rule-123-A may apply prospectively and not retrospectively and no recovery can be made applying the amended provisions. In that view of the matter, steps for recovery of amount on the basis of the audit report without initiating any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. 9. This Court considered the similar question in Nityananda Prusty v. O.F.D.C. LTD & Ors. In that view of the matter, steps for recovery of amount on the basis of the audit report without initiating any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. 9. This Court considered the similar question in Nityananda Prusty v. O.F.D.C. LTD & Ors. 2015 (I) ILR-CUT-596 taking into Bhagirathi Jena, Dev Prakash Tewari, Sukadev Behera (supra) and Sarat Chandra Das v. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation, 2013 (II) ILR CUT 109. 10. In view of the ratio decided by the apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena and Dev Prakash Tewari (supra) as well as this Court in Sukadev Behera, Sarat Chandra Das and Nityananda Prusty (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that without initiating any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner withholding the gratuity and leave salary amount sanctioned by the authority on 15.05.2009 cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, the authorities are directed to pay the retirement dues, namely, gratuity as well as the leave salary amount admissible to the petitioner which have been sanctioned by the authority vide letter dated 15.05.2009 along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of passing of this judgment. 11. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. However, there would be no order to costs. Petition Allowed.