JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for not granting arrear salary and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. FACTS 2. The conspectus to the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner joined as Cleaner in the erstwhile Odisha Road Transport Company Limited (hereinafter called “ORT Company”) on 28.8.1980. Since he has got valid driving licence on 25.3.1981 he was appointed as Jeep Driver in the said ORT Company. In the later years ORT Company was merged with Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called “OSRTC”) and as such the petitioner continued as Driver under OSRTC. After rendering 33 years of service petitioner retired with effect from 31.7.2013. After the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules 1998 (hereinafter called “Rules 1998”) came into force, pay fixation was made on 28.2.2009 but the petitioner was allowed to draw his salary in the pre-revised scale. Again the pay of the petitioner was revised under the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called “Rules 2008”) and pay fixation statement of the petitioner was prepared on 30.7.2013 one day before his retirement. The revised salary was purportedly neither sanctioned nor paid by the opposite party No.3 to the petitioner. 3. Be it stated that although the petitioner was allowed Time Bound Advancement Scale of pay in the pre-revised scale instead of revised scale under Rules 2008, the same has not been paid to the petitioner and he is entitled to the same from 1.4.2006. Petitioner has also not received the unutilized leave salary of 120 days although it has been sanctioned by the opposite party No.3 vide order No. 2539 dated 13.8.2014. It is further stated that the E.P.F. contribution has been made by the petitioner against E.P.F. Account No.OR-87/2926 but the opposite party No.3 has not deposited their share regularly with the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 for which the petitioner is at loss of interest. When after retirement the petitioner submitted claim before the opposite party Nos.4 and 5, it was rejected by them vide Annexure-6. Then the petitioner made representation to the opposite parties on 28.2.2014 but the same has not been resorted to. Hence, the writ petition is filed to sanction and payment of arrear salary under Rules 1998 and Rules 2008 and payment of gratuity and pension. 4. Then the petitioner made representation to the opposite parties on 28.2.2014 but the same has not been resorted to. Hence, the writ petition is filed to sanction and payment of arrear salary under Rules 1998 and Rules 2008 and payment of gratuity and pension. 4. Per contra, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 filed counter stating that the Rules 1998 was introduced with effect from 16.2.2009 with prospective effect, similarly Rules 2008 was introduced in OSRTC with effect from 1.4.2012 prospectively and it has been duly approved by the State Government in Public Enterprise Department, Finance Department and Commerce & Transport Department and same has not been given effect to retrospectively. Since the revision of scale of pay was made prospectively, the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears. Be it stated that this Court in W.P.(C) No.12978 of 1998 disposed of the writ petition with a direction that in absence of specific resolution of the Corporation Board, employees of OSRTC are not entitled to revision under Rules 1998 and Rules, 2008. Since the principle has been decided by this Court, such Rule has been given effect to prospectively. 5. In the counter it is also asserted that the E.P.F. dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs.2,722/- in his E.P.F. Account number has been duly deposited vide Cheque No.7160 dated 19.10.2015 and the petitioner is required to make application for withdrawal of the same along with interest. It is also the case of these opposite parties that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,53,783/- towards gratuity amount but after making recovery of Rs.33,157/- the balance amount of Rs.2,20,624/- was to be paid to the petitioner subject to approval of the authority. So, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 6. Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 filed separate counter. It is the case of these opposite parties that due to non-receipt of F-3A(R)/6A(R) along with deposit particulars, the application of the petitioner was returned but after the establishment submitted the annual returns in such form with deposit particulars, the reconciliation of the annual statement of accounts has already been made. According to them these opposite parties are now ready to settle the Provident Fund dues and his pension subject to observing some formalities by the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS 7. Mr. According to them these opposite parties are now ready to settle the Provident Fund dues and his pension subject to observing some formalities by the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS 7. Mr. P.K. Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having served for 33 years of service is entitled to revision of pay under Rules 1998 and under Rules 2008. The petitioner having been allowed Time Bound Advancement scale, he is entitled to revision of scale of pay by taking into account the revision of scale of pay under T.B.A. He further submitted that the petitioner having not been sanctioned the unutilized leave salary for more than 120 days in spite of the order of the Court, he is entitled to the same with interest. It is asserted by him that due to inaction of the opposite parties-OSRTC he is at loss of getting the pension from opposite party Nos.4 and 5 and he has filed all the requisites to receive the same. He further submitted that since the opposite parties without any fault of the petitioner have withheld the arrear salary and pensionary benefits including gratuity, they are liable to pay the same with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount to fall due till the actual payment to the petitioner. 8. Per contra, Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the OSRTC is under the control of the State Government and this Court has passed order that the employees of OSRTC are not entitled to the revision of scale of pay Rules 1998 and 2008. Since the State Government made the Rules 1998 and 2008 applicable prospectively with effect from 2008 and 2012 respectively, these opposite parties have nothing to do with to grant arrear salary to the petitioner. He further submitted that regularly the P.F. dues contribution has been made with the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 and the petitioner is at liberty now to withdraw the pension and other pensionary benefits. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrear salary as the benefits under respective revision of scale of Pay Rules as they are applicable to all the employees of the OSRTC prospectively. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrear salary as the benefits under respective revision of scale of Pay Rules as they are applicable to all the employees of the OSRTC prospectively. He further submitted that in the additional counter affidavit, these opposite parties have purportedly submitted that 16 days leave being at the credit of the petitioner as unutilized leave has been sanctioned and a sum of Rs.7,110/- has been adjusted towards recovery pending against the petitioner. He further submitted that the TBA on ORSP Rules 1998 was also allowed in favour of the petitioner and total amount was calculated at Rs.15,604/- and after effecting recovery of Rs.9,594/-, balance amount of Rs.6,110/-was paid to the petitioner. He further submitted that the E.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs.22,722/- was deposited in the G.P.F. Account to regularize the case of the petitioner and the gratuity of Rs.2,20,626/- has also been paid to the petitioner on 22.6.2016 and no other outstanding dues is to be paid to the petitioner. 9. The main points for consideration:- (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary in view of Rules 1998 and 2008 ? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount towards gratuity from the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and the pension from opposite party Nos.4 and 5 ? DISCUSSIONS POINT NO.(i) : 10. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was working as Driver although appointed as Cleaner at the initial stage. It is not in dispute that after rendering 33 years of service he attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31.7.2013. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the revision of scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1996 as per Rules 1998 and similarly he is also entitled to arrear salary as per the scale of pay revised under Rules 2008 whereas opposite parties took the plea that the Rules 1998 and 2008 are applicable prospectively from 2009 and 2013 respectively. According to opposite parties 1 to 3 the petitioner is not entitled to any arrear salary as the revised scale of is made applicable to all the employees of OSRTC prospectively. 11. On going through the relevant Rules 1998 it appears that the pay revision rules are applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 to all the State Government employees. According to opposite parties 1 to 3 the petitioner is not entitled to any arrear salary as the revised scale of is made applicable to all the employees of OSRTC prospectively. 11. On going through the relevant Rules 1998 it appears that the pay revision rules are applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 to all the State Government employees. Not a single paper is produced by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 to show the letter of the Finance Department or any other State Government department to prove that this Rule is applicable prospectively from 2009. Moreover, plea has been taken by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 that there is an order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12978 of 1998 that in absence of specific resolution of Corporation Board, employees of OSRTC are not entitled to such revision. No such order is placed before this Court for its appraisal and said record does not disclose passing of any such order. On the other hand, Annexure-3 shows that the petitioner’s pay has been fixed being revised under Rules 1998 under the signature of the competent authority. Of course it was fixed only on 28.2.2009. Similarly Annexure-4 shows that scale of pay has been revised with effect from 1.1.2006 under Rules 2008. It has been duly issued by the District Transport Manager, OSRTC, Bhubaneswar. Not only this but also the copy of the service book vide Annexures-8 and 9 show that under the Rules 1998 and under the Rules 2008 the increments have been refixed with date and years chronologically. It is made available from the copy of the service book that the Rules 2008 being duly approved by the Government in Commerce and Transport Department was communicated on 23.7.2013 but nowhere it is revealed that they are made applicable prospectively. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 that Rules 1998 and Rules 2008 are prospectively applicable are misconceived and found to be untenable. 12. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed separate affidavit on 12.4.2016 stating that the employees of OSRTC have received the arrear salary in six installments and petitioner has only been paid one installment and yet to receive five installments. 12. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed separate affidavit on 12.4.2016 stating that the employees of OSRTC have received the arrear salary in six installments and petitioner has only been paid one installment and yet to receive five installments. When the pay has been revised under Rules 1998 and Rules 2008 as per the procedure under pay fixation rule, the petitioner admits that he has got one installment leaving rest of the amount to get in five installments and the plea of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 that the respective scale of pay revision Rules are applicable prospectively being misconceived and utterly indolent, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary as per the fixation of pay under the Rules 1998 and 2008 respectively. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly. POINT NO.(ii) 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is yet to receive the gratuity from opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and the current pension from the opposite party Nos.4 and 5. He further submitted that the petitioner has not received unutilized leave salary. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 submitted that there are actually 16 days unutilized leave at the credit of the petitioner and same has been sanctioned. In the affidavit filed on 27.11.2016 opposite party Nos.1 to 3 admitted that 16 days unutilized leave salary for Rs.7,110/- has been adjusted towards pending recovery and Time Bound Advancement Scale with regard to Rules 1998 was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the amount of Rs.6,110/- has been paid to the petitioner after adjusting the recovery from the total amount of Rs.15,604/-. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 further submitted that according to recent affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3, the E.P.F. amount has already been deposited in the E.P.F. account of the petitioner and the gratuity amounting to Rs.2,20,626/- has been already paid to the petitioner. At the same time, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 submitted that necessary deposit has been made by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 but the petitioner is to complete the formalities after which they are ready to pay the P.F./pension. 14. At the same time, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 submitted that necessary deposit has been made by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 but the petitioner is to complete the formalities after which they are ready to pay the P.F./pension. 14. Considering the above submissions and after perusal of the affidavit dated 27.11.2016 filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and the recent affidavit of petitioner dated 29.11.2016, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity which should be recomputed according to law and if at all the amount as per the affidavit of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have already been paid, rest amount should be paid without delay. Since unutilized leave salary for 16 days has been paid, there lies nothing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 to pay towards leave salary. 15. So far as pension is concerned, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 being employer have deposited the above amount in the E.P.F. Account of the petitioner to regularize the case of the petitioner. But petitioner has to complete the formalities as per the counter filed by opposite party Nos.4 and 5. Since opposite party Nos.4 and 5 are ready to consider the claim petition and finalise the settlement of P.F./Pension dues of the petitioner, same should be done without any delay. The Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 16. From the foregoing discussions, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to all arrear salary under respective Rules 1998 and 2008. Since he has got one installment, rest of the installments should be paid. Similarly, petitioner being entitled to gratuity which was paid later on but without taking Grade Pay as per submission of the petitioner, same should be revisited after considering the submission of the petitioner. As opposite party Nos.4 and 5 are ready to settle the P.F. and Pension dues, it should be finalized after receiving necessary documents from the petitioner without fail. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 shall pay the arrear salary of the petitioner as per the pay fixation made with effect from 1.1.1996 under Rules 1998 and refixation of the same with effect from 1.1.2006 under Rules 2008 after computing the same in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 shall pay the arrear salary of the petitioner as per the pay fixation made with effect from 1.1.1996 under Rules 1998 and refixation of the same with effect from 1.1.2006 under Rules 2008 after computing the same in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has received one installment, rest of the installments be paid to him within a period of six months from the date of this order failing which same has to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of superannuation till actual payment. (ii) The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 shall recalculate the gratuity and balance amount, if any, petitioner is entitled, be paid within a period of three months from today. (iii) The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 are directed to issue notice to the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 for making deposit, if any, left over and also shall issue notice to petitioner to file requisites with proper format after which they would finalize the settlement of P.F. and pension dues and to disburse the same to the petitioner. They are directed to complete the entire process within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.