GETHAL BHOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application seeks to challenge the order dated 11.12.1996 (Annexure -1) passed by the Accountant General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar returning the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur for revision of the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner retired as a primary school teacher with effect from 10.3.1985 after the extended period of service on account of being honoured by the State Award.

(2.) IN essence, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ application is that his case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2224 of 1991 (Nanda Kishore Nayak v. State and Others) and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in OJC No. 186 of 1989 (Baidhar Mishra v. State and others). The apex Court in the case of Nanda Kishore Nayak (supra) observed as follows :

(3.) IN view of the stand taken by Opp.Party No.2 in paragraph -5 of the counter affidavit and since the petitioners claim is found to be genuine and the revision of the pensionary benefit is said to have been made vide Annexure -A/1 to the said counter affidavit, the present writ application is disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to submit a fresh proposal in the prescribed Form by re -fixing the petitioners pension in the revised pay scale within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, Opp.Party No.2 -Accountant General is directed to act in terms of the fresh proposal to be submitted by the D.I. of Schools within a period of two months thereafter and to ensure that all outstanding pensionary benefits of the petitioner are released in his favour within the aforesaid period. It is made clear that if the entire exercise is not completed within the time stipulated, the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date of this judgment till actual payment and such interest, if due and payable, shall be deducted from the salary of such officer who causes the delay, if any, in compliance of this judgment.