STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS Vs. JAGANNATH PATTANAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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.