JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to count the past service rendered under the State Government as fully qualifying service for fixation of retirement, gratuity and pension and to release the arrears with 12% interest per annum. 2. Brief case of the petitioners is that they were initially been appointed as Sub-Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Co-operative Department of Government of Orissa and worked for 8 years and 11 months from 21.10.1964 to 9.9.1973 so far it relates to petitioner no.1 while petitioner no.2 had performed his duty as a regular employee under the State Government for a period of 9 years and 7 months from 21.01.1964 to 7.8.1973. 3. The petitioners, in pursuance to an advertisement made by opposite party no.1 inviting applications for recruitment as Lecturer, they made their applications, in which they had been selected and joined on 16.09.1973 and 8.8.1973 respectively, after successful completion of probation, they had tendered their resignation from the State Government service at the instance of opposite party no.1. 4. The petitioner no.1 served under opposite party no.1 for the period of 26 years 1 month from 10.09.1973 to 31.10.1999 as Lecturer, Vice-Principal and Joint Director for different period while petitioner no.2 had served under opposite party no.1 for the period of 27 years 10 months from 8.8.1973 to 30.06.2001 as Lecturer, Vice-Principal, Deputy Director, Reader and Principal at different units for different period. The petitioners thereafter had retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and 30.06.2001 respectively. 5. The petitioners had made representation for counting the service which they had rendered under the State Government for the purpose of release of pensionary benefit and when the relief has not been extended in their favour they are before this Court by this writ petition. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.3 inter alia taking stand that the petitioners have chosen to go on deputation under opposite party no.1 and subsequently they have taken for merger of their service with the foreign employment, moreover they are tendered their resignation from government service which was accepted. 7. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.3 inter alia taking stand that the petitioners have chosen to go on deputation under opposite party no.1 and subsequently they have taken for merger of their service with the foreign employment, moreover they are tendered their resignation from government service which was accepted. 7. The State Government in pursuance of the Finance Department vide Office memorandum No.2276 dated 20.01.1999 have introduced a Scheme of “Benefit of pension based on combined service in Government and autonomous body” according to which the pension Scheme for employees of opposite party no.1, the autonomous body under which the petitioners served till their retirement on superannuation was introduced since 16.12.1988 but the opposite party no.1 had moved the opposite party no.3 in their letter dated 8.8.96 for discharging the pension liability of the petitioners for the period they have served under the State Government, which communication was actually been received in the office of opposite party no.2 some time in the year 1997. 8. The State Government thereafter had collected relevant documents and the matter was processed. The pension liability i.e., service gratuity Rs.2286/- and gratuity Rs.827/- of the petitioner no.1 and service gratuity of Rs.2519/- and gratuity of Rs.930/- of the petitioner no.2 were sanctioned by the Government in Co-operation Department vide order No.13759 dated 10.09.2001. It has been stated that prior to that the Government after verification of the records agreed in principle, for release of pensionary liability of the petitioner vide letter No.199902/Cooperation Department dated 20.09.1999 and in terms thereof the amount was remitted by opposite party no.3 to opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 14.12.2001 by way of Bank Draft but the same was returned to the office of opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 9.1.2002 on the pretext that the Government should pay interest on the said amount from the date of their resignation i.e., from 1973 till date. 9. It is the further stand of opposite party no.3 that allowing interest on the pensionary liability is not admissible under the said circular. It has further been stated that after considering the matter regarding payment of interest an order has been passed by opposite party no.3 as contained in memo no.5229 dated 24.3.2003 (Annexure-A/3). 10. 9. It is the further stand of opposite party no.3 that allowing interest on the pensionary liability is not admissible under the said circular. It has further been stated that after considering the matter regarding payment of interest an order has been passed by opposite party no.3 as contained in memo no.5229 dated 24.3.2003 (Annexure-A/3). 10. While on the other hand, separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 inter alia stand has been taken therein that the petitioners have not been paid the full pension for the reason that the Government has not decided their proportionate share as per Rule-14 of the C.C.A. Pension Rules. It has been submitted that for discharging proportionate gratuity and pension liability which is just and proper and unless the compound interest is being paid by the State Government from the date of relieve/discharge of the petitioners from their service, there is no question of making payment along with interest by opposite party nos. 1 and 2. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The petitioners have prayed regarding counting of the past service which they have rendered under the State government for certain period and accordingly claims the benefit along with interest. 12. From perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, it is evident that State Government has agreed with the principle for counting of the past service which the petitioners had rendered in the State Government i.e., the period from 21.10.1964 to 9.9.1973 so far as it relates to petitioner no.1 and from 21.1.1964 to 7.8.1973 so far as it relates to petitioner no.2 and accordingly proportionate pension for the said period was calculated and the consequential amount has been released by way of Demand Draft vide letter dated 14.12.2001 but the opposite party nos.1 and 2 has returned the said Demand Draft vide letter dated 9.1.2002. This statement can be perused at paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.3. Thus, it is evident from the said paragraph that there is no dispute regarding counting of the past service which the petitioners had rendered in the State Government and the same has been acceded to and thereafter consequential order has been passed hence the relief regarding counting of past service of the petitioners has been redressed. 13. Thus, it is evident from the said paragraph that there is no dispute regarding counting of the past service which the petitioners had rendered in the State Government and the same has been acceded to and thereafter consequential order has been passed hence the relief regarding counting of past service of the petitioners has been redressed. 13. So far as the consequential benefit for the said period, the demand draft has been issued by opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 14.12.2001 but the same has been returned to opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 9.1.2002. 14. At this juncture, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.3 has submitted that if the petitioner will approach opposite party no.3 and if the amount has not yet been disbursed the same shall be released in favour of the petitioners. 15. In view of such submission, the petitioners are at liberty to approach opposite party no.3 by making detail claim related to proportionate pension of the petitioners for the period in question as calculated and transmitted the amount through Demand Draft and if the petitioner will approach within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if the said amount has not yet been disbursed, same shall be released without any further delay preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 16. So far as claim of the interest is concerned, for determination whether the petitioner is liable to be paid the compound interest or not; it would be relevant to see as to whether there is any delay and if there is any delay, the delay is attributable to the petitioners or opposite party nos.1 and 2 or opposite party no.3. 17. 17. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have been appointed under the State Government i.e., under opposite party no.3 from 21.10.1964 to 9.9.1973 and 21.01.1964 to 7.8.1973 so far as both the petitioners are concerned respectively and thereafter they have chosen foreign service in pursuance to advertisement invited by opposite party no.1 on the terms and conditions which is applicable on an employee who intends to go for foreign service on deputation but subsequently they have chosen to remain in foreign service and accordingly they have tendered their resignation and they have become permanent employee of opposite party no.1 hence it was within the knowledge of the petitioners that they had performed some part of duty under the State Government and thereafter they had been sent on deputation by way of foreign service where they had continued fairly for a long period i.e., till the date of retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and 30.06.2001 respectively. But both the petitioners have chosen not to take any initiative for merger of their service under the new appointment. 18. The petitioners for the first time have raised their grievance when they have retired from service by way of filing this writ petition in the year 2002. By considering the reply of opposite party no.3 regarding counting of past service for the purpose of pensionary benefit, specific stand has been taken that opposite party no.1 had moved opposite party no.3 for counting of the past service vide letter dated 8.8.1996 and thereafter the Government has taken decision for release of pensionary benefit vide letter dated 20.09.1999 and accordingly the amount has been released by way of Demand Draft to opposite party no.1 but that has been returned by opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 9.1.2002. This specific stand which has not been disputed by the petitioners or by opposite party nos.1 and 2, it is evident that State Government after being noticed regarding claim of the petitioner has acted and disbursed the amount but the same has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner on the pretext that the amount is without any compound interest hence the petitioners have been deprived from the actual benefit not by opposite party no.3 but by opposite party nos.1 and 2. 19. 19. At that juncture it was the duty of opposite party nos.1 and2 to disburse the amount which was released by opposite party no.3 in favour of the petitioner since the same relates to pensionary benefit of the petitioners with the further course of action to follow up the grievance regarding release of compound interest but instead of doing so the entire amount was returned back before opposite party no.3. 20. Moreover, the ground has been taken by opposite party no.3 that circular also does not provide for release of pensionary benefit to the petitioner and in this respect the order has been passed by opposite party no.3 on 24.03.2003 which has been annexed as Annexure-A/3 but that has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 21. Moreover, since the petitioner knowing all these facts but sat idle for longer period and for the first time raised their grievance regarding merger of their service for getting the pensionary benefit hence the cause of action for the petitioners will be said to be arisen way back when they have tendered their resignation from 9.9.1973 and 7.8.1973 respectively and as such since the writ petition has been filed in the year 2002 i.e., after lapse of about 13 years, hence claim of the petitioners for interest is barred by delay and latches. 22. It is settled that imposing interest cause burden upon the State exchequer but even then depending upon the facts direction can be passed to release the interest if there is delay which is attributable to the State Government or the employer where the employees have rendered their service but in the facts and circumstances of this case as narrated above, the petitioners have sat idle for long period in pursuing the matter regarding release of pensionary benefit by counting past service which cause of action had occurred in the year 1973. Hence, the claim regarding compound interest is rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with the observation and direction as indicated hereinabove.