[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Debabrata Ray vs Union Of India Represented .... Opp. ... on 22 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P(C). No.10161 of 2026
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
....
Sri Debabrata Ray .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Union of India represented .... Opp. Parties
through its Secretary, Ministry of
Environment & Forest
2. State of Odisha represented
through its Chief Secretary
3. Principal Secretary to
Government, Forest, Environment
& Climate Change Department
4. Additional Secretary to
Government, Forest, Environment
& Climate Change Department
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s. K. Mohanty and S. Das,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel
(for OP No.1)
Mrs. S. Pattanaik
Additional Government Advocate
(for OP Nos.2 to 4)
Page 1 of 6
....
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 22.04.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
Petitioner, a retired employee, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court
for assailing the Cuttack Central Administrative Tribunal's order in O.A.
No.398 of 2020 disposed off on 24.02.2026 to the extent it denies interest
on the delayed payment of terminal benefits and cost of the litigation,
which he was compelled to fight for years albeit successfully.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that
pension is not a bounty vide D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC
130 and whenever there is unjustifiable delay in settling the terminal
benefits, the employer has to pay interest vide State of Kerala v.
Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356.; that having not been adverted to by
the Tribunal, there is a manifest error on the face of impugned order
warranting interference of this Court. He also takes us through certain other
proceedings, which Petitioner launched earlier successfully for the
quashment of unfounded disciplinary proceedings.
3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel-Mr. Rayaguru appearing for the OP
No.1 and learned AGA-Mrs. Pattanaik representing OP Nos.2 to 4, resists
the petition mentioning certain facts that related to framing of charges in a
disciplinary proceeding, which at a later point of time culminated into
quashment by the Tribunal, challenge to the same before a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court having ended in vain. Learned Panel Counsel very
fairly concedes before the Court that some interest is payable in law and we
appreciate the same.
4. Having heard this matter at the admission stage with the consent of
counsel for the Parties and having perused the petition papers, we are
inclined to grant indulgence as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. It hardly needs to be stated that an employee, who retires from
service, has to be paid the terminal benefits including the pension within a
reasonable time and that cannot be beyond three months in any
circumstance not attributable to his guilt. Petitioner retired from service on
30.04.2015 and the terminal benefits have been settled only on 12.05.2022.
There is a delay of more than seven years and therefore, the same is liable
to carry interest at a reasonable rate, in view of Padmanabhan Nair supra.
4.2. The vehement submission of learned Panel Counsel & AGA is that
Petitioner was served with a Charge Memo on 25.11.2011, which he had
challenged in O.A. No.191 of 2013 and the Tribunal vide order dated
12.09.2019 quashed the Charge Memo and relieved him of all the
allegations. This was challenged by the OPs in W.P.(C) No.13191 of 2020
and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.06.2021
dismissed the same thereby granting imprimatur to the order of Tribunal.
That being the position still OPs took eleven months to settle the terminal
benefits, i.e., only on 12.05.2022, that too without paying any interest.
When charge memo is quashed, the question of arguable dropping of the
disciplinary proceedings, argued by learned AGA, makes no legal sense.
The Apex Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church or South
India Trust Assn CSI, AIR 1992 SC 1439 has observed about the effect of
quashment of proceedings by the competent Court. Once such proceedings
are quashed, nothing remains on record ab initio. Therefore, the pendency
of disciplinary proceedings, which came to be quashed by the Tribunal and
Tribunal's order came to be affirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench, would not
constitute any justification for denying the interest on the delayed
settlement of terminal benefits and also the cost of litigation.
4.3. In the light of above discussion, now, we have to decide what should
be the rate of interest, the delayed payment of terminal benefits should
carry. Pension is no longer a bounty, but a constitutional guarantee; pension
is defined under Article 366(17) of the Constitution of India, as a
consideration for the past services rendered by the employee. Further, the
terminal benefits constitute property of the retiree and therefore, are
protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, in the light of
wider interpretation placed in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 3430. Petitioner has rightly sought for the
payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He has suffered a lot to
hold his body and soul together without pension. Post retirement benefits
cannot be denied; in a welfare State, the employees who retire from service
peaceably sans any blemish have to be treated with soft gloves, said the
Karnataka High Court in Smt. M. Rekha v. Union of India, 2024 INSC
44625-DB,. In our considered view, levy of interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of retirement be paid on the delayed settlement of the
terminal benefits, i.e., 12.05.2022, he having retired on 30.04.2015 would
do justice.
4.4. All the above aspects of the matter have not been properly discussed
by the Tribunal and thus there is a gross error apparent on its approach to
the matter which eventually culminated into a wrong order, now put in
challenge at our hands.
In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; the impugned
order of the Tribunal is modified to the effect that on the delayed payment
of terminal benefits, OP Nos.2 to 4 shall pay interest to the Petitioner at the
rate of per 1% per mensem within two months, failing which that interest
rate shall stand enhanced to 1.5% right from the day one for the first three
months and 2% for the period next following. Petitioner is also entitled to a
cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards the legal battles,
which he was avoidably made to fight albeit successfully. Interest
component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 22nd day of April 2026 /Madhusmita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 23-Apr-2026 14:15:44
