JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for not releasing the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called ‘Rules 1981’) and the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter called ‘Rules 1992’).

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner started his service in the erstwhile District Board, Puri as an Assistant Teacher on 1.1.1957 under the Zilla Parishad, Puri. He continued as such till 31.12.1960 but from 1.1.1961 his service was placed in Non-Government Primary School. Thereafter he was frequently transferred from one Education District to another Education District against the Rule. So, protesting his frequent transfer, he tendered resignation on 27.10.1983. But the opposite parties again reinstated him on compassionate ground on 26.9.1987 and he superannuated from service on 30.11.1993.

3. Be it stated that the petitioner being in Government service with effect from 5.9.1989 to 30.11.1993 for not more than 10 years may not be entitled for the pension under the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1992 but he is entitled to pension having completed 27 years by 27.10.1983 when he resigned and thus, he is eligible to receive pension under Rules 1981. It is further stated that in order to avail pension under the Pension Rules, 1981 or under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Non-Government Fully Aided Primary School Teachers’) Retirement Benefit Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules, 1986’) he made representation but that was not being considered. So, he filed O.J.C. No.12590 of 1999 which was disposed of on 20.12.1999 in the following term:-

“O.J.C. No.12590 of 1999

2. 20.12.1999

Grievance of the writ petition is although his pension papers were submitted before the Block Development Officer, Astarang in April, 1994, his claim for pension is not being finalized.

2. Considering the said grievance we dispose of the writ petition by directing the opposite parties 3, 4 and 6 to take final decision on the petitioner’s claim for pension in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and to release pension, the petitioner is entitled to get, within one month thereafter.

This order be communicated to the opposite parties 3, 4 and 6 along with copy of the writ petition.

Requisites for such communication along with copy of writ petition be filed by 22.12.1999”.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the authorities took their own time to dispose of the representation for complying the order of this Court but the petitioner came to know that there was recommendation for giving benefit but due to wrong notion for condonation of service from 1983 to 1987, the action was delayed. Due to inaction of the authorities, the petitioner had to file another W.P.(C) No.1464 of 2016 before this Court and this Court while disposing of that writ application on 8.2.2016 again directed the opposite party No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. It is the case of the petitioner that when he approached opposite party No.2 to consider his grievance, the opposite party No.2 struck down his request vide Annexure-8. So, he was compelled to file this writ application for quashing Annexure-8 and to direct the opposite parties to sanction the pension and pension papers due to petitioner on the basis of admitted regular service, i.e., from 1.1.1957 to 27.10.1983. The petitioner has served in Fully Aided Primary School and District Board. Again he has asked for calculation of the entitlement of the petitioner from 1.12.1993 along with interest of 10% per month which may be recovered from the concerned official or staff responsible for such non-sanction of pension in favour of the petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted t