JUDGMENT B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who is a retired police officer, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay balance GPF amount with interest and compounded interest @ 18% per annum on all the retrial benefits, such as, pension, gratuity, GPF, commuted value of pension and unutilized leave salary for delayed payment of such dues. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh in the year 1963. After joining in service, a subscription account was opened in his name in the same year vide A/C No. 21657-G.A. (O) and accordingly account slip was issued to him by the Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Office, Sundargarh. While he was so continuing, in the year 1964, he appeared an interview for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and was selected to undergo training. Consequentially, he was relieved from the office of Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh on 10.01.1964 and joined in the Police Training College, Angul on 14.01.1964. During his training period, he was regularly subscribing to the GPF account. After completion of training, he was relieved from the Police Training Centre, Angul in December, 1964 and joined as Sub-Inspector of Police in Sambalpur on 01.01.1965 and there he continued till May, 1974. Though he was paying the GPF dues, but he did not receive any account slip for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Therefore, he approached the authority on several occasions, but no action was taken. 2.1 On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.03.1997 and submitted all the relevant documents for the purpose of getting retirement benefits from the opposite parties. In spite of several approaches made by the petitioner, since no action was taken, he filed OA No. 2670 (C) of 1998 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the balance GPF amount, gratuity, unutilized leave salary, group insurance deposit and other retirement benefits, which he is entitled to. The tribunal, vide order dated 26.11.1998, disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the opposite parties to give pension with other benefits. The tribunal, vide order dated 26.11.1998, disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the opposite parties to give pension with other benefits. On receipt of the order passed by the tribunal, the opposite parties partly paid the retirement dues, i.e. pension on 12.09.1999 at old scale of pay from 01.04.1997 to 01.01.1999 Rs.96,557/-, commuted value of pension of Rs.60,878/- on 12.09.1999 and gratuity of Rs.48,000/- on 18.03.1999, without releasing the balance GPF amount and unutilized leave salary, though he is entitled to get all retirement service benefits on the date of retirement. 2.2 The Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh, vide letter no. 1154 dated 29.03.2000, forwarded the revised calculation sheet of the petitioner in O.C.S. (P) Form-8 in triplicate with revised LPC for onward transmission to the Government for revision of pension, DCRG and commuted value of pension. Though the petitioner approached the opposite parties to pay all retirement benefits, but the same were not paid. Due to non-compliance of the direction given by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2670 (C) of 1998, he filed C.P. No. 127 (C) of 2000 and upon hearing the tribunal issued notice on 28.11.2001 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause. On receipt of the notice from the tribunal, the Accountant General (A & E), Orissa again on 11.01.2002 released the gratuity amount of Rs. 93,200/- without interest out of Rs.1,48,613/- and commuted value of pension amounting to Rs.1,18,114/-without interest out of Rs.1,78,992/- on 11.01.2002. Thereafter, a balance amount of Rs. 63,944/- with interest towards GPF was although due, an amount of Rs.42,744/- was paid on 20.03.2002 without any interest. 2.3 Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, even though petitioner made several grievances, but the authorities did not consider the same. Consequentially, the petitioner again approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2044 (C) of 2005 seeking aforesaid relief. On being noticed by the tribunal, the opposite party no.1 filed counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner retired from government service on 31.03.1997 as D.S.P. The DG & IG of Police, Orissa submitted the pension papers on 31.08.1998 and requested to release the pension and commuted value of pension but to withhold gratuity till receipt of final NDC from them. The pension papers were forwarded to the AG (A & E), Orissa on 17.10.1998 for release of pensionary benefits. The pension papers were forwarded to the AG (A & E), Orissa on 17.10.1998 for release of pensionary benefits. The final NDC of the petitioner was received from DG (P), Orissa on 23.10.1998 and the same was forwarded to AG (A & E), Orissa on 16.11.1998. Consequentially, the AG (A & E), Orissa released the PPO and CPO on 29.01.1999 and GPO on 05.03.1999. Upon fixation of his pay in the O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 and inclusion of past service rendered by the petitioner in Zilla Parishad Office, Sundargarh, the D.G (P), Orissa was requested in Department letter dated 05.02.2000 to furnish proposal for revision of pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The D.G (P), Orissa submitted revised proposal on 03.08.2000 with his service book. The service book was forwarded to Finance Department for concurrence of the past service rendered by the petitioner in Zilla Parishad Office, Sundargarh, which was received on 22.06.2001. Accordingly, the revised pensionary documents were forwarded to the AG (A & E), Orissa on 21.07.2001. Consequentially, the AG (A & E), Orissa released revised PPO, CPO and GPO on 28.12.2001. It is stated that there is no absolute administrative delay in communicating the pension papers and grant of pension etc. by the opposite party no.1. As a result, it is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the petitioner. 2.4 Before the tribunal, the opposite party no.3 also filed separate counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner's pension papers were received in the office of opposite party no.3 on 22.10.1998 and necessary orders as to payment of pension and commuted value of pension were issued by opposite party no.3 on 29.01.1999, i.e. just after taking three months time, which was the minimum time required for settlement of a pension case after completing all the paraphernalia/procedure. With regard to release of balance GPF amount, it is contended that the petitioner was allotted two GPF account numbers. On receipt of the petitioner's final payment application from the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer, an amount of Rs.1,46,551/- was authorized as available balance in respect of the GPF Account No.22703 P(O) on 10.12.1997. Since there were some irregularities in respect of deposits made for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the GPF account of the petitioner, a CE memo dated 10.12.1997 calling for details of the deposits for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 was also issued. Since there were some irregularities in respect of deposits made for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the GPF account of the petitioner, a CE memo dated 10.12.1997 calling for details of the deposits for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 was also issued. After receipt of the details from the concerned DDO and verifying the same with his GPF account, an amount of Rs. 42,744/- was worked out as due and admissible and accordingly authorized vide letter dated 06.02.2002 and the same was paid with interest of Rs.2025/-. Consequentially, for delay in payment of GPF interest has already been paid, as a result the petitioner is not entitled to any claim as has been made. 2.5 By way of rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner disputed such facts and categorically stated that despite specific provision in the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as the order of the tribunal passed in O.A. No. 2670 (C) of 1998, the opposite parties have paid the following retirement benefits at old scale of pay vide PPO No.300988:- "1. Pension on 12.09.1999 Rs. 96,557/- (01.04.1997-01.01.1999) 2. C.V.P on 12.09.1999 Rs.60,878/- 3. Gratuity on 18.03.1999 Rs.48,000/- Thereafter the S.P. Sundargarh on 29.03.2000 submitted pension paper with revised L.P.C. before the Respondent No.1 for revision of pension, DCRG & CVP. The A.G. (A & E), Odisha authorized the following revised pension in favour of the Applicant on the following dates : 1. Gratuity on 11.02.2002 Rs.93,000/- out of Rs.1,48,613/- without interest. 2. C.V.P. on 11.02.2002 Rs.1,18,114/- out of Rs.1,78,992/- without interest. 3. G.P.F. on 20.03.2002 Rs.42,744/- out of Rs.63,944/- without interest. 4. Unutilized leave salary on 02.07.2002 Rs.44,478 without any interest. Further the A.G. (A & E) Odisha authorized the following balance gratuity & C.V.P. in favour of the applicant on the following dates: 1. Gratuity Rs.4,413/- in March 2005 without interest. 2. C.V.P. Rs. 5,648/- in March, 2005 without interest. Though the Applicant is entitled to get the balance G.P.F. amount Rs.21,200/- but the same has not yet been paid." The petitioner has further stated that since his retirement dues were not paid on due date of his retirement, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum for such delayed payment, in view of the Govt. of Orissa, P.G. & P.A. Department letter dated 30.12.1999, which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. of Orissa, P.G. & P.A. Department letter dated 30.12.1999, which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is further stated that there is no delay attributable to the petitioner so as to disentitle him to get the benefit of interest for delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, as has been stated by the opposite parties. 3. Although pleadings were completed, on the abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, the above noted O.A. No. 2044 (C) of 2005 was transferred to this Court, in pursuance of order dated 03.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 27440 of 2019 by a Division Bench of this Court, and registered as above and taken up for hearing. 4. Mr. B.R. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the provisions contained in Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 petitioner's pension papers had been transmitted to the authority concerned and in view of Rules 58(1), 62 and 64(1) of the Rules, 1992, pensionary benefits were to be disbursed to the petitioner well within time specified, but the same has not been complied with. Thereby, the opposite parties are responsible for non-compliance of the statutory provisions and for non-payment of the retiral dues well within time specified they are liable for payment of interest @ 18% for delayed payment of the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. L.Rs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,2015 1 OLR 81 (SC). 5. Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, referring to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1, vehemently contended that since the service of the petitioner had been regularized during the period when he was continuing in the office of the Zilla Parishad, the delay has been caused for release of the pensionary benefits and, as such, the delay is not attributable to the authority concerned, rather the delay has been caused by the petitioner himself. Consequentially, the State opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest for so called delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 6. Though Mr. Consequentially, the State opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest for so called delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 6. Though Mr. P.R.J. Dash, learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3 and has filed a counter affidavit, pleadings of which have been taken note of by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, but none appeared at the time of hearing. 7. This Court heard Mr. B.R. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4 through virtual mode, and perused the record. As pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and it is an old case of the year 2005, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner was a government employee and after his superannuation from service he is entitled to get pensionary benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. For release of pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner, Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 are applicable. Elaborate provisions in the context have been prescribed under Rules-57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 65 appearing in Chapter-VIII of the Rules, 1992. Chapter-IV deals with conditions for grant of pension. 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. Adhering to such provisions, the petitioner is entitled to get the pensionary benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law within the time stipulated. 9. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,1983 1 SCC 322, referring to Social Security Law by Prof. Harry Culvert, it is stated as follows: " "Pension' is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanism primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual of a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefits in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed." 10. In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) AIR 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. 11. In Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148 , the apex Court held that pension is not bounty of the State. It is earned by the employee for service rendered to fall back, after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. 12. In State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan, (1997) 4 SCC 569 , the apex Court held that conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and quantum of pension. The same view has also been reiterated in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., (1999) AIR SC 1212. 13. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O. Varghese, (2003) 12 SCC 293 , referring to corpus juris secundum, it is stated that the title 'pension' includes pecuniary allowances paid periodically by the Government to persons who have rendered services to the public or suffered loss or injury in the public service, or to their representative; who are entitled to such allowances and rate and amount thereof; and proceedings to obtain and payment of such pension. 14. Further, referring to Halsbury's Law of England 4th Edn. Reissue, Vol.16, in the very same judgment in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the apex Court held as follows: ""Pension' means a periodical payment or lump sum by way of pension, gratuity or superannuation allowance as respects which the secretary of state is satisfied that it is to be paid in accordance with any scheme of arrangement having for its object or one of its objects to make provision in respect of persons serving in particular employments for providing with retirement benefits and, except in the case of such a lump sum which had been paid to the employee." 15. Considering the meaning attached to the word 'pension', as stated above, and on analysis of the same, three things emerge; (i) that the pension is neither bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to the statute, if any, holding the field; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is social welfare measure rendering social-economic justice to those who in the 'hey days' of their life ceaselessly toiled for employers on an assurance that in their ripe old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the emoluments earlier drawn. Its payment is dependent upon additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement. 16. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 , the apex Court held that 'pension' is treated to be a deferred salary. It is not a bounty. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on date of retirement. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in Dhruba Charan Panda etc. v. State of Orissa, (1999) 2 OrissaLR 433 : Vol. 88 (1999) C.L.T. 637 : applying the ratio in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., (1999) AIR SC 1212 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. 18. In D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. L. Rs. V. Uttar Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd.,2015 1 OrissaLR 81 (SC), the apex Court, relying upon their judgment in State of Kerala. V. M. Padmanabhan Nair mentioned supra held that for delayed payment of pension and gratuity, interest has to be granted for the period from the date of entitlement up to the date of actual payment. 19. L. Rs. V. Uttar Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd.,2015 1 OrissaLR 81 (SC), the apex Court, relying upon their judgment in State of Kerala. V. M. Padmanabhan Nair mentioned supra held that for delayed payment of pension and gratuity, interest has to be granted for the period from the date of entitlement up to the date of actual payment. 19. In State of Orissa v. Jagannath Pattanaik [W.P.(C) No. 12024 of 2006, disposed of on 14.12.2017], while upholding the judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 14.03.2000 passed in O.A. No. 419 (C) of 2000, a Division Bench of this Court, of which Dr. B.R. Sarangi,J. is a member, came to a definite finding that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the tribunal in awarding interest for delay in payment of pensionary and other benefits admissible to the government employee, opposite party therein, in accordance with the 1992 Rules. Thereby, the Division Bench of this Court did not interfere with the findings of the tribunal and upheld the same. 20. In view of the factual matrix and propositions of law, as discussed above, and applying the same to the present context, there is no iota of doubt with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for claim of interest for delayed payment of pensionary benefits granted to him. Therefore, this Court unequivocally holds that the petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum for delayed payment of pensioanry dues, including GPF amount admissible to him. Such amount should be calculated and paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this judgment. 21. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order to costs. 22. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the judgment available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.