I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a retired Executive Engineer of the Works Department, Government of Orissa, has filed the instant writ petition against the impugned judgment/order dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 288 of 2000 by which the Tribunal dismissed his claim petition in so far as the same related to the prayer of the petitioner before the Tribunal for a direction for payment of gratuity. Rather the Tribunal has directed that the gratuity shall not be paid until the criminal proceeding which is pending against the petitioner is concluded.
2. The petitioner was retired on 30.9.1992 i.e. about more than 14 years ago. He had stated before the Tribunal that after about two months of his retirement, a vigilance raid was conducted at his residence consequent upon which the criminal proceeding was initiated on 6.5.19.96. The State Government did not sanction the full pension of the petitioner and he was only sanctioned the provisional pension and the commuted value of his provisional pension, but his gratuity has been withheld.
3. In the counter affidavit before the Tribunal, the opposite parties conceded the facts that the petitioner retired on 30.9.1992 and the criminal proceeding was instituted against him on 7.12.1992 (date of first information report).
4. It has been admitted by the opposite parties that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, no departmental proceeding was pending against him and consequently a vigilance case as mentioned above has been instituted against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 on the basis of the allegations of having disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 9,42,166.61 and due to this reason, his pensionary benefits have not been released.
5. The Tribunal, in its impugned judgment/order, has referred to Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 66 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 which are quoted as under:
(1) Where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending in respect of a Government servant on the date of his retirement, referred to in, he shall be paid a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant; or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.
(2) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon:Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii-A) of Rule 13 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant.
6. Relying upon the above quoted rules; the Tribunal has denied the relief claimed by the petitioner in respect of payment of gratuity.
7. We have perused Sub-rule (2), which is supplement to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 66. Sub-rule (1) provides that where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending in respect of a Government servant on the date of his retirement, he shall be paid a provisional pension and in Sub-rule (2), it has been provided that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
8. A cumulative reading of both the sub-rules quoted above shows that the same may apply only when on the date of retirement of a Government servant, departmental or judicial proceedings are pending against him, but this rule would not apply where no departmental or judicial proceedings are pending on the date of retirement against the Government servant. In the instant matter, it is admitted by the opposite parties that neither departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding was pending against the petitioner on the date of retirement. The judicial proceeding has started pursuant to the raid conducted in the house of the petitioner after his retirement and a first information report was lodged on the basis of the documents recovered from the house of the petitioner. Therefore, Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 66 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner.
9. It is also a matter of consideration that when the criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1992, there should be some limit for its disposal. The petitioner retired in the year 1992. Thereafter criminal proceedings were initiated against him, which are allegedly still pending even after about fifteen years. Therefore, we do not think it proper to observe in the instant case that non-payment of gratuity is justified even after fifteen years of the retirement of the petitioner. He is entitled to the gratuity with interest.
10. As regards interest, the concerned rules are silent. In the case of H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited (2003) 1 ATT (SC) 95, the apex Court has fixed the interest at the rate of 10% per annum. In the case of Gorakhpur University v. Shital Prasad Nagendra AIR 2001 SC 2433, the apex Court, relying upon the earlier decisions in the case of R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income-Tax : (1995)ILLJ884SC , State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair : (1985)ILLJ530SC and Som Prakash v. Union of India , observed that the apex Court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as discussed in the foregoing paragraph, we fix the interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
11. Therefore, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned judgment/order dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 288 of 2000 (Annexure-3) and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of gratuity with interest at the rate of 10% per annum to the petitioner from the date it became due till the date of payment, which shall be made without further delay preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
12. There shall be no order as to cost.
N. Prusty, J.
13. I agree.