Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1454 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Jagannath Pattanaik

2017-12-14

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. Challenging the legality and propriety of order dated 14.03.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 419(C) of 2000, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 01.09.1966 opposite party was appointed as Agricultural Teacher under the erstwhile Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department, which has subsequently been renamed as SC and ST Development Department. In the year 1974, he became Welfare Extension Officer. In the year 1991, he was transferred from Padampur Block of Rayagada district and compelled to join at Marshaghai Block. Against such order of transfer, he made a representation, but the same was not considered favorably. He thus represented for voluntary retirement, which was allowed by the authorities on 09.03.1994 with immediate effect. His pension papers and documents, on being submitted, were sent to the Director of erstwhile Harijan and Tribal Welfare Department, Orissa, vide letter dated 12.05.1994, for sanction of pension. But the same were sent back with the instruction to the opposite party to resubmit the same through the Head Office. In compliance thereto, though he resubmitted pension papers and documents through the Head Office, i.e., Block Development Officer, Marsaghai, together with an application for sanction of final pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, leave, arrear increments, arrear revised scale and final withdrawal of GPF, etc., but in spite of several correspondences no action was taken. Due to inaction of the authority concerned in releasing pensionary benefits, the opposite party approached Orissa State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 419(C) of 2000, in which, after due adjudication, the tribunal by order dated 14.03.2000 directed the petitioners to take steps to finalist the pensionary claims, such as pension, commuted value of pension and gratuity to the opposite party within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order along with a copy of the paper book, as due and admissible under the rules, on the basis of the last pay drawn by the opposite party at the time of his retirement on voluntary basis. It was further directed that as regards remaining claim like, withdrawal of G.P.F., sanction of leave and leave salary, arrear increments, arrear revised pay, the opposite party was to file a separate original application, if so advised. It was further directed that as regards remaining claim like, withdrawal of G.P.F., sanction of leave and leave salary, arrear increments, arrear revised pay, the opposite party was to file a separate original application, if so advised. If as a result of sanction of increment and revised scale of pay his last pay drawn is also revised, then his pension, gratuity etc. would have to be revised. The interest shall also be paid on the gratuity amount @ 7% after one year of retirement till actual payment and @ 18% on accumulated pension from the time it was due till the actual payment. If the petitioners would feel necessary, they may fix responsibility on the officers and officer responsible for the delay and recover the quantum of interest from such officers found responsible for such delay. Aggrieved by such direction of the tribunal, the State petitioners have approached this Court by filing this application. 3. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State petitioners urged that direction given by the tribunal for payment of interest is arbitrary and unreasonable, in view of the fact that provisional pension was sanctioned in favour of the opposite party much before filing of the case. Such being the position, direction to pay interest on accumulated pension would not have been given by the tribunal. It is further contended that in the meantime the authorities have already issued necessary sanction order for drawal of final pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity and death-cum-retirement benefit. In such circumstance, the impugned order passed by the tribunal is liable to be quashed, particularly when it was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners. 4. Having heard learned Government Advocate on the question of admission and examining the record available, this Court does not propose to issue notice to the opposite party, as in the meantime more than 11 years have already passed. Even though the order was passed by the tribunal on 14.03.2000, the writ application was preferred after lapse of six years on 30.08.2006. 5. It is not disputed that the opposite party is entitled to get the pension. Admittedly, the opposite party was rendering government service and he opted for voluntary retirement, which was accepted. He is thus entitled to get the pensionary benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 5. It is not disputed that the opposite party is entitled to get the pension. Admittedly, the opposite party was rendering government service and he opted for voluntary retirement, which was accepted. He is thus entitled to get the pensionary benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. As such, the opposite party submitted relevant documents for the purpose of sanction of pensionary benefits, but the same were not paid to him well within the reasonable time stipulated under the rules. The purpose of granting pension has been well considered by the apex Court, as well as by this Court in catena of decisions where it has been held that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension has also a broader significance, in that it is a measure of social-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental powers is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey day of life to your employer in days of invalidity economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated alliance of stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d’eter for pension is the inability to prove for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. The benefit is granted to a government servant under the provisions of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “1992 Rules”). Therefore, the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1992 Rules. The benefit is granted to a government servant under the provisions of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “1992 Rules”). Therefore, the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1992 Rules. More particularly, pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and as such is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. 6. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 , the apex Court held as to what are the goals that pension scheme seeks to sub-serve. 7. In State of Keerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 , the apex Court observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The same view has also been reiterated in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 1212 . 8. As per 1992 Rules, the provisions have been made under the Rules 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 65 appearing in Chapter-VIII with regard to grant of pension to a government employee. Chapter-IV deals with condition for grant of pension and sanctity attached to expeditious payment to a pensioner is revealed from the modalities prescribed; some of them being time bound and even specifying the officials who are to take steps. Therefore, the Rules governing the field have to be adhered to in letter and spirit. To be more specific, in Dr. Uma Agrawal (supra), the apex Court held that the Government is obliged to follow the Rules in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retrial benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. Uma Agrawal (supra), the apex Court held that the Government is obliged to follow the Rules in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retrial benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where retired Government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. 9. Applying the said ratio decided in Dr. Uma Agrawal (supra), this Court in Dhruba Charan Panda etc. v. State of Orissa, 88 (1999) C.L.T. 637 held that if there is any delay in payment of pension the pensioner shall be entitled to 18% interest per annum for the period of delay and such interest shall be recovered from the person/persons responsible for the delay. While fixing the rate of interest, the Court kept in view the minimum bank rate of interest charged for borrowing from bank. 10. The above being the position of law settled by the apex Court as well this Court, since there was delay in payment of pensionary benefits to the opposite party, the direction given by the tribunal for grant of interest on gratuity amount @ 7% after one year of retirement till actual payment and @ 18% on accumulated pension from the time it was due till the actual payment, in our considered opinion cannot be said to be erroneous. Even though no notice was issued to the petitioners by the tribunal and provisional pension has already been released in favour of the opposite party, his entitlement towards pensionary benefits has not been denied in the present proceeding. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by the tribunal by awarding interest for delay in payment of the pensionary and other benefits admissible to the opposite party in accordance with 1992 Rules. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding as given by the tribunal which is hereby upheld. 11. The writ petition thus stands dismissed being devoid of any merits. There shall be no order as to cost.