SURENDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.93(C)/1999 is assailed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner was working as a doctor in the cadre of Class -1(Senior) at Patnagarh in the district of Bolangir, Unfortunately, he was suspended from service and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Subsequently, he was reinstated on 5.4.90 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.1996. After retirement the petitioner approached the authorities several times for payment of his pension. But then the authorities did not pay any heed to his requests. Having no other alternative the petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1587/1996 assailing initiation of the departmental proceedings. He also moved the Tribunal in O.A. No.3700/1996 with a prayer to issue a direction to the authorities to pay his pension. In O.A. No.3700/1996 the Tribunal by order dated 22.1.1996 directed the State Government to pay provisional pension within a period of one month. The said order having not been complied, the petitioner moved the Pension Lok Adalat. It is submitted that the Lok Adalat also directed the authorities to pay pension within a stipulated time. Inspite of the said direction, no action was taken by the authorities, consequently, the petitioner once again filed O.A. No.93(c)/1999. In the said O.A. the Tribunal issued an interim order directing the authority to pay provisional pension to the petitioner. The said direction was also flouted by the authority, consequently the petitioner filed C.P. No.248(C)/99 and two other Misc. Petitions, i.e. M.P. Nos.40(C) and 42 (C) of 2002. The Tribunal after hearing parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner had contributed to the cause of delay in finalization of his pension papers and the C.P. was dropped. Being aggrieved by the said observation, the petitioner, as it appears, approached this Court in O.J.C. No.4084/2002. The said Writ application was disposed of on 18.11.2004. This Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A. No.93(c)/1999 without being influenced by the observations made in the C.P. Thereafter, the O.A. was heard and disposed of by the impugned order. The Tribunal, it is submitted, erroneously relying upon the observations made earlier in C.P. No.248(c)/99, refused the prayer of the petitioner to award any interest. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court once again.

(2.) AFTER going through the impugned order this Court finds that there is apparent error on the face of the impugned order inasmuch as in spite of the observations made by this Court in O.J.C. No.4084/2002, the Tribunal without deciding the dispute on merit relied upon the observations made in the Contempt Petition to the effect that the petitioner had contributed to the cause of delay, and rejected the prayer to pay interest.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Perused the pleadings and documents annexed meticulously. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Government employee. He retired from service on 30.6.1996. A portion of the provisional pension was paid only on 31.3.2000. Thus, there was delay of more than three years. It is no more res integra that pension is not a bounty. It is in fact a deferred salary and is like a property. Pension is co -related and has nexus with the salary payable to the employee on the date of retirement. (see U. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2145. Similar view is also expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SUPREME COURT 130.