The main legal point established in the judgment is that a retired employee is entitled to interest at 18% per annum for delayed payment of pensionary dues, including GPF amount, as per the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who is a retired police officer, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay balance GPF amount with interest and compounded interest @ 18% per annum on all the retrial benefits, such as, pension, gratuity, GPF, commuted value of pension and unutilized leave salary for delayed payment of such dues.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh in the year 1963. After joining in service, a subscription account was opened in his name in the same year vide A/C No. 21657-G.A. (O) and accordingly account slip was issued to him by the Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Office, Sundargarh. While he was so continuing, in the year 1964, he appeared an interview for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and was selected to undergo training. Consequentially, he was relieved from the office of Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh on 10.01.1964 and joined in the Police Training College, Angul on 14.01.1964. During his training period, he was regularly subscribing to the GPF account. After completion of training, he was relieved from the Police Training Centre, Angul in December, 1964 and joined as Sub-Inspector of Police in Sambalpur on 01.01.1965 and there he continued till May, 1974. Though he was paying the GPF dues, but he did not receive any account slip for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Therefore, he approached the authority on several occasions, but no action was taken.

2.1 On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.03.1997 and submitted all the relevant documents for the purpose of getting retirement benefits from the opposite parties. In spite of several approaches made by the petitioner, since no action was taken, he filed OA No. 2670 (C) of 1998 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the balance GPF amount, gratuity, unutilized leave salary, group insurance deposit and other retirement benefits, which he is entitled to. The tribunal, vide order dated 26.11.1998, disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the opposite parties to give pension with other benefits. On receipt of the order passed by the tribunal, the opposite parties partly paid the retirement dues, i.e. pension on 12.09.1999 at old scale of pay from 01.04.1997 to 01.01.1999 Rs.96,557/-, commuted value of pension of Rs.60,878/- on 12.09.1999 and gratuity of Rs.48,000/- on 18.03.1999, without releasing the balance GPF amount and unutilized leave salary, though he is entitled to get all retirement service benefits on the date of retirement.

2.2 The Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh, vide letter no. 1154 dated 29.03.2000, forwarded the revised calculation sheet of the petitioner in O.C.S. (P) Form-8 in triplicate with revised LPC for onward transmission to the Government for revision of pension, DCRG and commuted value of pension. Though the petitioner approached the opposite parties to pay all retirement benefits, but the same were not paid. Due to non-compliance of the direction given by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2670 (C) of 1998, he filed C.P. No. 127 (C) of 2000 and upon hearing the tribunal issued notice on 28.11.2001 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause. On receipt of the notice from the tribunal, the Accountant General (A & E), Orissa again on 11.01.2002 released the gratuity amount of Rs. 93,200/- without interest out of Rs.1,48,613/- and commuted value of pension amounting to Rs.1,18,114/-without interest out of Rs.1,78,992/- on 11.01.2002. Thereafter, a balance amount of Rs. 63,944/- with interest towards GPF was although due, an amount of Rs.42,744/- was paid on 20.03.2002 without any interest.

2.3 Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, even though petitioner made several grievances, but the authorities did not consider the same. Consequentially, the petitioner again approac