JUDGMENT

N. PRUSTY, J. : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.06.1996 passed by the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Original Application No.2161 of 1995 and also the order dated 09.12.1998 passed in Review Petition No.24 of 1996 confirming the above order dated 17.06.1996 passed in the Origi¬nal Application, in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for special pay attached to the post of O.A.S. Class-I Senior Branch (Deputy Secretary) and Super Time Senior Branch (Joint Secretary) along with interest @ 18 % per annum on delayed payment of arrear, arrear dues relating to commuted value of pension along with interest @ 18 % per annum and compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for harassment and allowing the prayer for payment of interest for the delayed payment of D.C.R.G., if the delay is unreasonable.

2. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the State in this case, on a detailed discussion relating to the facts and merits of the case, learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. vide order under Annexure-8 with the following directions :-

“8. xxx xxx xxx Accordingly, I direct that on the adverse entries being expunged, case of applicant at different stages may be taken into consideration afresh if they have not been so considered, while giving him promotion by implementation of the order at different stages. Cause of action for fresh considera¬tion arises after the adverse entries were expunged. If at the time of superannuating the adverse entries as existing were not considered and case of applicant was considered as if he had no adverse entries no further action is necessary though the commu¬nication of expunging adverse entries was delayed. Either the case of the applicant shall be considered afresh or in case has been properly considered without taking into consideration the adverse entries for giving him promotion the facts shall be communicated to the applicant within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the applicant is given fur¬ther promotion, financial benefits on the said basis shall be given to him.

9. Special pay is not a right. When applicant was promoted to the cadre of O.A.S. Class-I (Jr. Branch) he ought to have made a clam for the special pay. If the claim would not have been entertained or would not have been attended to, he would have approached the Tribunal within the period of limitation as pro¬vided under the Act. This claim is rejected on that ground also. Same is the fact of special pay in the higher post. Accordingly, both the claims are rejected on that ground.

10. There is absolutely no justification for not finalizing the pension to allow the applicant to draw provisional pension only. There does not appear to be any justification for withholding of the gratuity also. If the determination of the gratuity would depend upon the finalization of pension, the reason for withholding the gratuity as claimed shall be intimated to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Either gratuity will be paid or reason for withholding the gratuity shall be communicated to the applicant within the period of three months.

11. Delayed payment of gratuity bears interest as provided in the statute. It goes without saying that applicant shall be entitled to the statutory interest when the same is paid in full for the period of delay if delay is unreasonable.

12. I direct the Respondents to work out this order within the time limit fixed failing which it shall be treated to be contumacious conduct unless reason for delay is intimated to the applicant if this order cannot be complied with.”

3. The petitioner filed M.P. (I.P.) No.24 of 1996 for review of the above order-dated 17.06.1996 and to grant relief as sought for therein. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the order dated 17.06.1996 passed in O.A. No