[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Rohit Kumar Santuka .... Opp. Party on 18 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 10636 of 2024
State of Odisha and Others .... Petitioner
Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, AGA
-versus-
Rohit Kumar Santuka .... Opp. Party
Mr. A. P. Bose, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 18.03.2026
07. Petitioners being the State & its officials are
knocking through the writ jurisdiction of this Court for
assailing the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated
14.03.2023 whereby OP-pensioner's OA No.260/00556 of
2020 having been favoured, the following relief has been
granted.
"In view of the discussions made and the law discussed
above, it is held that the applicant is entitled to the interest at
the rate applicable to the GPF deposits on the delayed
payment of pension and leave salary from the date it became
due till actual payment was made and the interest on the
Gratuity after three months of moratorium period from the
date of retirement till the amount is actually paid and the
same shall be paid to the applicant within a period of 90 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Petitioners
vehemently argues that the OP retired way back in the year
2005; his leave salary was settled in 2009 Pension has been
sanctioned in 2015 and his DCRG was handed in 2016. He
tells that, the delay brooked due to false lies of OP-
employee, inasmuch as he did not give the full particulars of
the housing loan availed by him at the hands of Petitioners
themselves and therefore, the direction to award interest is
unsustainable.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the OP-employee
vehemently resists the petition making submission in
justification of the impugned order and the reasons on
which it has been structured. He draws our attention to All
India Services DCRG Benefit Rules, 1958 and the decision of
Apex Court in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC
328 wherein interest on terminal benefits @ 12% has been
awarded when delay has been brooked. So contending, he
seeks dismissal of the petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
4.1. The Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of
India, (1986) 1 SCC 305, has held that the terminal benefits
payable to a retiring employee is not a bounty but is a right.
This Court has taken the view that the terminal benefits do
constitute the property and therefore, withholding the same
without justification is a violation of Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, unless the terminal benefits
are withheld on justifiable grounds, delay has to be met by
awarding interest at reasonable rates, if not penal interest.
4.2. Learned counsel for the OP-employee is right in
telling us that here is enormous delay brooked in settling
the terminal benefits and that his client faced great difficulty
because of this. It hardly needs to be stated that after the
retirement, pension is paid by way of consideration for the
past service so that the pensioner holds his body & soul
together. This has not been kept in mind by the petitioners,
who have caused on this occasion, enormous delay in
setting the terminal benefits. The OP-employee retired in
2005 and his leave salary was given only in 2009. His
pension was settled in 2015 and DCRG was paid in 2016.
The contention that there were no housing loan, would not
impress the Court, inasmuch as the lenders are none other
than the Petitioners themselves and therefore, they could
have ascertained what amount was due from the side of the
OP-employee. This they have not done and therefore, the
impugned order is inexplicable.
4.3. The last contention of learned AGA Mr.
Behura that OP-employee's representation seeking payment
of interest was rejected by the Petitioners on the delayed
settlement of terminal benefits, way back in the year 2016
and therefore, without laying a challenge to such rejection,
the Tribunal would not have granted any relief to him is
bereft of merits. It hardly needs to be stated that ours is not
an East India Company, the Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath
Hazarika V. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 516 has held that
the State and its functionary should conduct themselves as a
model employer.
In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition being
unworthy of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it
is. The impugned order shall be implemented by the
petitioners within an outer limit of eight weeks, failing
which the interest awarded by the Tribunal shall be
doubled, and this additional interest shall be recoverable
from the erring officials of the Department.
Costs made easy.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AKPradhan/Priyanka
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 19-Mar-2026 16:05:56
