ORDER Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was working as Lady Assistant Surgeon, Police Hospital, Rourkela in the district of Sundargarh, has filed this writ petition essentially for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the ground of delayed payment of arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 amounting Rs.77,716/-, and other consequential benefits incidental thereto, in her favour. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner joined as Assistant Surgeon under the Govt. of Odisha, Health and Family Welfare Department in January, 1985 and was posted at District Headquarter Hospital, Sambalpur. Thereafter, she worked under such capacity in different Govt. Hospitals till July, 1992, when she was transferred to Police Hospital, Rourkela under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela. While she was continuing there, she crossed her Efficiency Bar in May, 1995 after reaching the appropriate scale and her Efficiency Bar crossing proposal was to be sent by the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela to the Government through proper channel for timely sanction, but the same was not recommended in due time. Vide Office order No.41460 dated 04.10.1996 of the Government of Odisha, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the service of the petitioner was regularized. As a consequence thereof, the service book of the petitioner containing her service particulars for the period prior to 1995 and for subsequent years, reached opposite party no.1 in December, 1998. But, the proposal in connection with crossing of the Efficiency Bar of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela to the Government notwithstanding the specific instruction contained in the Finance Department Memo No.8827/F dated 28.07.1980 and letter No.53977/F dated 24.10.1980. 2.1. For inaction of the authority, the petitioner submitted representation dated 12.07.2000 under Annexure-2 before opposite party no.1. When no action was taken by opposite party no.1, the petitioner approached opposite party no.2 by filing representation dated 31.01.2001 at Annexure-3, but the same was not attended to. After lapse of about two years, the proposal regarding crossing of Efficiency Bar of the petitioner was sent by opposite party no.1 to the Director of Health Services and since the same was sent in a defective manner due to fault of opposite party no.1, it was returned back and sent again. After lapse of about two years, the proposal regarding crossing of Efficiency Bar of the petitioner was sent by opposite party no.1 to the Director of Health Services and since the same was sent in a defective manner due to fault of opposite party no.1, it was returned back and sent again. Accordingly, the proposal regarding crossing of Efficiency Bar of the petitioner was sanctioned on 07.08.2002. But, the scale of pay of the petitioner was not fixed in the revised scale as per the Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations dated 09.02.2003 and 12.06.2003 at Annexures-4 & 5 respectively before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Odisha, Home Department. In response thereto, the Government of Odisha, Home Department vide letter dated 11.06.2003 under Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3, called upon the Director General and the Inspector General of Police, Odisha to submit a detailed report indicating the reasons for non-fixation of her pay, steps taken for fixation and the persons responsible for the same within a period of 15 days. Since the said instructions were not carried out, the Government of Odisha, Home Department by its letter dated 16.07.2003 under Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, sent a reminder but the same was not responded. But, finally the pay of the petitioner was fixed in January, 2004 and she drew her arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 till 08.06.1999 in the revised scale amounting to Rs.73,716/-, whereas the scale of pay of similarly situated persons was fixed in time in January, 1999 and they got their arrear dues by the end of January, 1999. 2.2. For the delay in extension of the benefit of crossing Efficiency Bar and also fixation of arrear salary for no fault on her part, the petitioner has claimed interest @ 12% per annum on her arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 amounting to Rs.73, 716/- or in alternative she has sought direction for realization of interest from the erring officer. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Hence this application. 3. Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposite parties have caused delay in sending the proposal regarding crossing of Efficiency Bar and also payment of arrear dues, as a result of which, the service book of the petitioner was received in the office of opposite party no.1 in December, 1998 for submission of proposal of crossing Efficiency Bar. The proposal was sent to the State Police Headquarters vide letter dated 30.01.2001 i.e. after a period of more than two years from the date of receipt of the service book. After a period of more than 4 years from the date of her regularization, i.e. 04.10.1996, the said proposal was received in the Police Headquarters on 06.02.2001 and the same was forwarded to the Government of Odisha, Department of Health and Family Welfare, pursuant to which the proposal regarding crossing of Efficiency Bar of the petitioner was sanctioned on 07.08.2002. It is further contended that such delay is not attributable to the petitioner, rather to the opposite parties for their callous attitude to move with snail's pace to allow the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar, though it was due in 1996, and also for grant of the revised scale of pay in 1998 at a belated stage. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 1077 ; Dhruba Charan Panda v. State of Orissa, 1999 (II) OLR 433 and Gobardhan Naik v. State of Orissa (WPC (OAC) No.2044 of 2005 disposed of on 22.06.2021). 4. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State, referring to counter affidavit, contended that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on adhoc basis with effect from 23.01.1985 vide notification dated 19.01.1985 issued by the Government of Odisha, Health and Family Welfare Department with one day break between two spells of appointments, pursuant to which she joined in the Police Hospital, Rourkela on 31.07.1992 as per transfer and posting order dated 07.07.1992 of the Director, Health Services, Orissa and subsequent detailed posting order dated 29.07.1992 of CDMO, Sundargarh and was relieved on 08.06.1999 to join Police Hospital, OSAP 2nd Battalion, Jharsuguda. Her services were regularized in the year 1996 vide office order dated 04.10.1996 of Health and Family Welfare Department. Accordingly, the CDMO, Sambalpur was requested by the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela, vide letter dated 28.01.1997, to regularize her services by sanctioning annual increment and pay fixation up to 30.07.1992, i.e. the date of posting under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela. After fixation of her pay under ORSP Rules, 1989, her service book was sent to Superintendent of Police, Rourkela on 17.12.1998 by the CDMO, Sambalpur for further necessary action i.e. the verification of services and sanction of increments in the revised scale. Due to regularization of service and fixation of pay under ORSP Rues, 1989, after October, 1996 the arrears could not be drawn in time. As a result, the petitioner filed this application seeking direction to the State opposite parties to pay interest on the arrear dues on fixation of pay under ORSP Rules, 1989 and annual increment. It is further contended that it was not possible to send the proposal for crossing the Efficiency Bar without regularization of service of the petitioner. Therefore, delay has been caused awaiting regularization of service of the petitioner. So far as grant of Efficiency Bar is concerned, the moment the services of the petitioner were regularized, the service book was handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela for taking immediate steps for payment of dues admissible to the petitioner. The contentions raised that delay so alleged is not individual laches, rather it is a process which caused delay and due to such reason the petitioner is not entitled to get interest as claimed by her in the writ petition. 5. This Court heard Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. K. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State by hybrid mode. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. The moot question to be considered by this Court, whether the petitioner is entitled to get any interest for delay in payment of arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 or not ? 7. The facts delineated above are not in dispute. 6. The moot question to be considered by this Court, whether the petitioner is entitled to get any interest for delay in payment of arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 or not ? 7. The facts delineated above are not in dispute. So far as grant of increment is concerned, though the petitioner's increment was due in 1996, after regularization of service on 04.10.1996, the proposal regarding crossing of Efficiency Bar was received in the Police Headquarters on 06.02.2001, which was forwarded on 26.02.2001 and vide letter dated 07.08.2002 to the Government of Orissa, Department of Health & Family Welfare for sanction of the same. Thereby, there was a gross delay in sanctioning the Efficiency Bar. As it appears, there are no laches on the part of the petitioner for such delay, rather the same can be attributable to the opposite parties. If there is delay on the part of the authority and for no fault of her the petitioner suffers, in that case the opposite parties are liable to pay interest for delayed payment of financial benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner. 8. So far as fixation of pay of the petitioner as per ORSP Rules, 1989 is concerned, the opposite parties have not disputed the fact that other similarly situated persons were allowed to draw their arrear salary pursuant to revision of scale of pay, whereas the petitioner received arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 after a delay of five years, that ipso facto indicates that the petitioner is entitled to get interest. This fact has been explained at page-5 of the counter affidavit to the following effect: '..In view of this the delay could not be avoided. Further there is no provision to allow interests on the arrear claims of a Government servant for which the claim of the Applicant is not justified. That in reply to para 6(7), it is submitted that as pointed out above, it is natural that some time was taken for drawal of the arrear claims of a pretty long period i.e 1985 to 2002'. 9. In view of such position, it is apparent that there was violation of the instructions contained in the Finance Department Memo No.88270/F dated 28.07.1980 and letter No.53977/F dated 24.10.1980. 9. In view of such position, it is apparent that there was violation of the instructions contained in the Finance Department Memo No.88270/F dated 28.07.1980 and letter No.53977/F dated 24.10.1980. The opposite parties have refuted the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to till 08.06.1999 amounting to Rs.73,716/- on the ground that there is no provision for the same. In absence of any provisions or rules, it can be construed that the interest on delayed payment of arrear salary as a constitutional right can be claimed by an employee. 10. In S.K. Dua (supra), the apex Court held as follows: '11. Xxx xxx In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. xxxx' 11. Following the judgment as mentioned above, the other High Courts, namely, High Court of Madras, High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and also the Goa Bench have awarded interest for delayed payment of the dues of the petitioners in the respective cases. 12. In Dhruba Charan Panda (supra), this Court also directed in paragraph-18 to the following effect:- '18. We dispose of this application with a direction to the State Government to administratively instruct all the Heads of Departments and the concerned officials to ensure that different steps prescribed to be taken under the Rules are rigidly followed and any non-observance thereof is to be strictly viewed. 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 this interest shall be recovered from the person/persons responsible for the delay. While fixing the rate of interest, we have kept in view the minimum bank rate of interest charged for borrowing from bank. This aspect shall also be notified to all concerned. While fixing the rate of interest, we have kept in view the minimum bank rate of interest charged for borrowing from bank. This aspect shall also be notified to all concerned. We are sure, if such stringent steps in addition to those, which the State Government may feel necessary to impose, are taken there shall be strict compliance of the requirement of law and in future the old retired persons shall not be required to move in the corridors of the Courts with tears in their eyes and a faint ray of hope of getting remedy early, and not posthumous. We record our appreciation for the able and fair assistance rendered by all learned counsel who appeared in the case for various parties. No costs.' 13. Similarly, in Gobardhan Naik (supra), this Court, after taking into consideration a series of judgments of different courts, held that the employer is liable to pay interest in case of delay in payment of the pensionary benefits granted to the petitioner therein. Accordingly, this Court directed the employer to pay interest to the retired employee at the rate of 18% within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgment. In paragraph-20 of the said judgment this Court held as follows: '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.' 14. Considering the factual aspect vis-a-vis the law decided by the apex Court as well as this Court, mentioned supra, it can be irresistibly concluded that delay in payment of arrear salary for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 is admitted and the fact, that the other similarly situated employees have already received arrear salary in time, is also not disputed by the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum, as claimed in the writ petition by the petitioner, as delay is attributable to the opposite parties, but not to the petitioner. As such, in the meantime, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Consequentially, this Court directs the opposite parties to pay the interest @ 12% per annum on account of delay for the period from 01.01.1996 to 08.06.1999 amounting to Rs.73,716/- and other consequential benefits incidental thereto within a period of four months from the date of communication of this judgment. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.