Orissa High Court
Capt. Dhiren Kumar Mohanty vs Union Of India And Others ....... ... on 3 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Capt. Dhiren Kumar Mohanty ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India and others ....... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Tarun Patnaik,
Advocate
For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Dillip Kumar Sahoo, CGC
For Opposite Party
Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Nanda,
Advocate
For Opposite Party No.4 : None
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment: 03.09.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the letters dated 24/25.03.2015 (Annexure-25), 14.03.2016 (Annexure-32) and 02.05.2016 (Annexure-34) issued by the Opposite Party No.2, vide which the claim of the Petitioner for interest on delayed disbursal of terminal benefits stood rejected.
2. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that, the Petitioner, while working as Deputy Conservator in Paradip Port Trust, shortly hereinafter 'PPT', was issued with letter dated 02.04.2007 by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Government of India (Opposite Party No.1) vide which the Petitioner was appointed as Director (Marine Services), Ennore Port Ltd. in Schedule-C Scale of Rs.22,500-600- 27,300/- for a period of five years. It was indicated in the said communication that the detailed terms and conditions of his appointment will be issued separately in W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 2 of 40 due course. Accordingly, the Petitioner was relieved from PPT on 30.04.2007 (Annexure-5) to join Ennore Port Trust.
2.1 Thereafter, the Petitioner, vide letter dated 22.05.2007 requested the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping-the Opposite Party No.1, to treat his appointment as Director (Marine Services), EPL on deputation basis so also requested before various authorities vide number of letters for acceptance of his contribution towards GPF by the PPT till the finalization of the terms and conditions of his appointment. 2.2 On 13.11.2007, the Accounts Officer, PPT, wrote to the DGM (Finance) so also Secretary, EPL indicating therein that it would not be possible to receive GPF contribution of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the amount sent towards GPF contribution was returned by the PPT.
2.3 The Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Chairman-cum- Managing Director, EPL, vide letter dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure-10), communicated to the Opposite Party No.1 W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 3 of 40 that, while PPT, upon intervention by the Ministry, accepted the Petitioner's GPF contributions, it refused to accept the leave salary and pensionary contributions sent by EPL for the financial year 2007-08, indicating therein that as per the DPE guidelines, the Petitioner, being on deputation, is entitled to keep lien in his parent department post for five years.
2.4 Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 14.01.2010 instructed the Opposite Party No.2 to accept the Leave Salary and pension contribution and also to maintain an account at PPT. Thereafter, PPT issued office order dated 03.02.2011 vide which the pay of the Petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007.
2.5 While continuing as such, the Petitioner, vide letter dated 18.11.2011 was appointed as the Chairman and Managing Director of Dredging Corporation of India (DCI) by the Opposite Party No.1 with scale of Rs. 75,000- 90,000/- for five years. Subsequently, on 01.12.2011 the Petitioner tendered his technical resignation from the W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 4 of 40 post of Deputy Conservator, Paradip Port Trust vide Annexure-15, requesting for settlement of pensionary dues and transfer of PF to DCI.
2.6 The Ministry finally issued the terms and conditions of the Petitioner's appointment as Director (Marine Services), EPL, on 05.02.2014 (Annexure-21). The Petitioner, vide letter dated 03.04.2014, informed PPT that as his appointment terms have been finalized by the Ministry vide letter dated 05.02.2014, his pending pensionary and terminal benefits should be settled at the earliest. Consequently, PPT disbursed the pensionary dues on 18.09.2014.
2.7 After receiving the terminal as well as Pensionary benefits, the Petitioner made a request to the Opposite Party No.1 to direct the authorities of PPT to pay interest @ 9.25% per annum or equivalent to State Bank's TDR on delayed payment of pensionary as well as terminal benefits, followed by reminder dated 30.01.2015.
W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 5 of 40 2.8. Vide letter dated 24/25.03.2015 the FA & CAO of Paradip Port Trust wrote to the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping stating therein that the Provident Fund had been released on 10.09.2014 with interest up to 31.03.2014 and the interest pertaining to the period from 01.04.2014 to 10.09.2014 would be released after closing of the financial year 2014-15.
2.9 Finally, the PPT, vide letter dated 14.03.2016, communicated to the Petitioner that there is no delay on the part of PPT in releasing the terminal benefits. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.2, vide its letter dated 02.05.2016, rejected the claim of the Petitioner for payment of interest reiterating its stand that the pension has been disbursed after submission of pension papers by the Petitioner in 2014 and without any delay by the Port Authority. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Interest on delayed payment of terminal as well as retiral benefits has been made mainly on the ground that, the delay in disbursement of such benefits is solely attributable to the untoward admitted delay in finalisation W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 6 of 40 of the terms and conditions of the appointment of the Petitioner as Director (Marine Services), Ennore Port Ltd by the Opposite Party No. 1. Even though the Petitioner was appointed as Director (Marine Services), EPL on 02.04.2007, the terms of the said appointment were issued after a delay of seven years, i.e., on 05.02.2014, by the Opposite Party No. 1.
3.1 It has also been prayed so on the ground that requests of the Petitioner before various Authorities to treat his appointment as Director (Marine Services), EPL on deputation basis on numerous occasions were never denied. Rather, from the conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner was under the positive impression that his appointment in the Opposite Party No.3-Establishment for the period 01.05.2007 to 29.11.2011 was on deputation basis.
3.2 It has further been prayed so on the ground that the Ministry of Shipping, vide letter dated 14.01.2010, itself recognized the appointment of the Petitioner as one made on deputation and directed PPT to accept the pension contributions. Moreover, PPT's office order dated W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 7 of 40 03.02.2011 explicitly states that the Petitioner was relieved from PPT on deputation to EPL.
4. Two separate Counter Affidavits have been filed by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 opposing to the prayers of the Petitioner made in the writ petition to justify the delayed payment of terminal as well as pensionary benefits. It has been stated that, the Petitioner admittedly submitted pension papers only on 23.07.2014 and within 40 days of such submission, payments were made to him. It has further been stated that GPF with interest has also been released till 31.08.2014.
4.1 It is the stand of the Opposite Parties that, since the appointment of the Petitioner was for a Board level Office, his claim for deputation, after joining in the newly selected post, is not maintainable. The GPF contribution of the Petitioner for the period from August, 2009 to May, 2010, so also for the period from July, 2010 has been taken into account and the same has been intimated to the Opposite Party No.4, i.e., Dredging Corporation of India Ltd., vide letter dated 24.09.2014.
W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 8 of 40 4.2 It is also the stand of the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 that, the Petitioner resigned on 01.12.2011 from his position as Deputy Conservator from PPT in a whimsical manner, instead of waiting to be relieved and then resigning upon his appointment as Director (Marine Services) in Ennore Port Limited, since there was no stipulation for deputation. Further, the letter from the Ministry of Shipping dated 27.02.2012 also reiterated that, as per Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) vide their OM dated 21.04.2006, appointment of Government Officers is to be made on an 'immediate absorption basis.' 4.3 It is further stand of the contesting Opposite Parties that, the PPT released all the pensionary dues after considering the terms and conditions conveyed by the Ministry so also released GPF subscription with interest up to 31.03.2014, as well as interest from 01.04.2014 to 31.08.2014 was also released on 24.07.2015. Further, the letter dated 24/25.03.2015 was issued in compliance of the order of the Ministry dated 05.02.2014 intimating that the PPT released all the outstanding dues of the Petitioner. W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 9 of 40 4.4 It is the stand of the Opposite Party No.2 that, the Petitioner's request for interest on delayed payment of pension and terminal benefits was declined by the PPT and vide letter dated 14.03.2016, it was stated that interest cannot be granted, as the payments were made after the submission of the pension papers by the Petitioner on 31.07.2014 based on the terms and conditions approved by the MoS vide letter dated 05.02.2014.
5. In response to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder Affidavit stating therein that, the Petitioner could only submit his pension papers to Opposite Party No.2 after receiving the official terms and conditions of his appointment as Director (MS), EPL from the Ministry of Shipping (Opposite Party No.1), which were finalized and communicated to him only on 05.02.2014. Accordingly, pension papers were submitted after the said date. 5.1 The letter dated 02.06.2007 from the Deputy Secretary (P&IR), PPT also confirms that pension and gratuity details would be provided only after receiving his appointment terms from the Ministry. This clearly shows W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 10 of 40 that the Petitioner was unable to submit his pension papers in 2007. Hence, Opposite Parties' stand of delay in submitting pension papers is attributable to the Petitioner is factually incorrect and inconsistent with their own prior communications. Thus, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits due to delayed issuance of terms and conditions of appointment of the Petitioner. 5.2 It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Opposite Party No.1, in its letter dated 14.01.2010, clearly stated that the Petitioner's appointment at Opposite Party No.3 Port was on deputation and a request was made to the PPT (OP No.2) to accept the Petitioner's Leave Salary and Pension Contribution. Further, Opposite Party No.2's own office order dated 03.02.2011 also confirms that the Petitioner was relieved from PPT on 30.04.2007 to join Ennore Port Ltd. at Chennai on deputation basis. Additionally, the Ministry of Shipping, vide order dated 16.03.1994, allows retention of lien of employees on the parent post for five years, those who are appointed in Board Level position in Central PSE, entitling the Petitioner to W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 11 of 40 retain his lien at PPT till April, 2012. Therefore, the claim that the Petitioner was not on deputation is unfounded and intended to avoid responsibility.
5.3 It is also the case of the Petitioner that, the terms of appointment issued by the Ministry on 05.02.2014 do not state that it was an immediate absorption. The Petitioner could not submit pension papers without knowing these terms, which have also been acknowledged by Opposite Party No.2 (PPT) in their letter dated 02.06.2007. Additionally, since all parties have treated the Petitioner's appointment as on deputation, the Opposite Party No.2's plea is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.
6. On 06.09.2024, the Petitioner filed an Additional Affidavit to counter the claim of the Opposite Parties regarding delay in submission of Pension papers by him stating therein that, the pension application form issued by PPT requires the employee to provide the date of end of service or the date of retirement, which date could only be determined after the Ministry of Shipping issued the Petitioner's terms of appointment on 05.02.2014. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 12 of 40 the OP Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally responsible for the delay in disbursing pensionary benefits, and the Petitioner is entitled to be paid interest on the delayed payments.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, submitted that the retirement date of the Petitioner was only confirmed after the issuance of his terms and conditions of appointment as the Director of Ennore Port Limited by the Ministry on 05.02.2014. Therefore, he could not have submitted his pension papers earlier. Thus, both the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and No. 2 are responsible for the delay in finalizing the appointment terms and such delay cannot be attributed to the Petitioner to justify withholding the Petitioner's pension and retirement benefits.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Rule 83 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, submitted that, a Central Govt. servant is entitled to payment of pension on the date when he ceases to be borne on the Establishment. Since, the Petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.04.2007 therefore, it is W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 13 of 40 to be construed that he is entitled to pension from 30.04.2007. Therefore, non-payment of the pension and retiral benefits from such date entitles the Petitioner to interest w.e.f 30.04.2007.
9. To substantiate his submission, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner relied on the Judgments of Supreme Court in DD Tewari (D) through LRs v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894, and in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, in which the Supreme Court held that even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest for delayed payment of pensionary benefits. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of his pensionary benefits from Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2, which was wrongly withheld by the port authorities from 2007 till 2014, i.e., for about 7 years, for no fault of the Petitioner.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the payment of gratuity and pension liability for the services rendered by the Petitioner has been W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 14 of 40 decided by the PPT basing on the terms & conditions of the appointment of the Petitioner issued by the Ministry. There is no stipulation in any communication of the Ministry that the Petitioner was on deputation to Ennore Port Ltd., Chennai.
11. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted that, the Petitioner submitted his resignation and pension papers late, at his own discretion. Had he submitted the pension papers promptly after being relieved from PPT vide order dated 30.04.2007, the issue of interest on delayed payments would not have arisen. Therefore, the Petitioner is solely responsible for the delay, not the PPT or the Ministry.
12. As is revealed from the record, while the Petitioner was working as Deputy Conservator, PPT, he was appointed as Director (Marine Service), EPL by letter of approval dated 02.04.2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & High Ways, Department of Shipping (Ports Wing) for a period of five years w.e.f the date of assumption of the charge of the post or till the date of his superannuation or until further W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 15 of 40 orders, whichever event occurs at the earliest. However, it was indicated vide the said letter of approval that a detailed Terms and Conditions of appointment will be issued separately in due course. Pursuant to such approval, the Opposite Party No.3-EPL, vide letter dated 21.04.2007 wrote to the Opposite Party No.2-PPT with a request to relieve the Petitioner at the earliest enabling him to take up his assignment at EPL with a copy to the Director (PHRD), Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. Being so requested, vide office order dated 30.04.2007, the Petitioner was relieved from his duty w.e.f. 1st May, 2007 FN in order to enable him to take up his new assignment indicating therein that he will relinquish charges of his post. Pursuant to such relieve order, the Petitioner joined the post of Director (Marine Services) in EPL w.e.f. 2nd April, 2007 indicating therein the date of joining to be 1st May, 2007 so also to treat his appointment in EPL on 'deputation basis'.
Immediately, after relieving the Petitioner, the Secretary, PPT wrote to the Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 11.05.2007 with a request to send the detailed terms and conditions of appointment of the Petitioner as Director W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 16 of 40 (Mines Services), EPL for office records and further necessary action, with copy to the Petitioner. Thereafter, since PPT did not accept the GPF contribution from EPL, the Petitioner wrote to the Opposite Party No.1 (Joint Secretary to Govt. of India (Ports), Ministry of Shipping Road Transport & Highways, Department of Shipping, New Delhi) requesting therein to direct the PPT to accept the GPF contribution, again reiterating therein to maintain his lien in PPT till a decision in the said regard is taken by the Ministry. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, EPL (Opposite Party No.3))also wrote to the Joint Secretary to Govt. of India (Ports), Ministry of Shipping Road Transport & Highways, Department of Shipping, New Delhi (OP No.1) vide letter dated 14.05.2009 indicating therein that DPE guidelines permits an employee, who has come from below Board level to a Board level post, to keep his lien in the parent department post for five years with a further request to advice PPT to accept the leave salary and pensionary contribution for the services of the Petitioner so as to avoid future complication in the said regard. The contents of said letter dated 14.05.2009, being relevant are extracted below. W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 17 of 40
"14th May, 2009 To Shri Rakesh Srivastava, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India (Ports), Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Department of Shipping, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
Sub: Leave salary and Pension contribution of Capt. D.K. Mohanty, Director (Marine Services), Ennore Port Sir, As per the Ministry's letter no.A-11013/II/98- P.E. II dated 2.4.2007, Capt. D.K. Mohanty joined in the post of Director (Marine services) with effect from 1.5.2007 at EPL. His parent organisation, Paradip Port Trust (PPT) which was initially not accepting the GPF contributions of Capt. Mohanty has now been accepting the same with your kind intervention. However, it is a matter of surprise that PPT have returned the leave salary and pensionary contributions sent by EPL for the financial year 2007-08.
2. As per DPE guidelines (copy enclosed), since Capt. Mohanty has come from below Board W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 18 of 40 level to a Board level post, he is entitled to keep lien in his parent department post for five years.
3. It is therefore requested that PPT may kindly be advised to accept the leave salary and pensionary contributions for the services of Capt. Mohanty at EPL so as to avoid future complications in this matter.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(S. Velumani) Chairman-cum-Managing Director"
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Pursuant to such communication made by the CMD, EPL, the Director (PO), Government of India, Ministry of Shipping (Port Wing), vide letter dated 14.01.2010, requested the Chairman, PPT to accept the leave salary and pensionary contributions of the Petitioner and maintain an account at PPT. The contents of the said letter dated 14.01.2010, being relevant, are reproduced below.
"No.PT-11013/II/98-PE-II/DO(PO) Government of India Ministry of Shipping (Port Wing) W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 19 of 40 New Delhi, Dated 14TH January, 2010 To The Chairman, Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Sub: Deputation of Capt. D.K. Mohanty to Ennore Port Limited.
Sir, I am directed to refer to the above subject and the letter of Paradip Port Trust F.No.FA/EA (G) M- 2/08/6834 dated 17th May, 2009 rejecting the Leave Salary and Pension Contribution. The matter related to finalization of Terms & Conditions of appointment of Capt. D.K. Mohanty is being finalized with the concurrence of Finance Wing till such time. It is requested to accept the Leave Salary and Pension Contribution and maintain an Account at Paradip Port Trust.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(R. Srinivasa Naik) Director (PO)"
(Emphasis supplied)
14. During the said period, the Opposite Party No.2- PPT also passed an office order dated 03.02.2011, vide which the pay of the Petitioner was revised w.e.f. W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 20 of 40 01.01.2007, wherefrom it is revealed that there is a mention by the Management of PPT that the Petitioner, who is on deputation, his salary is fixed in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Relevant portion of the said office order, is reproduced below for ready reference.
"OFFICE ORDER In accordance with Administrative O.M. No.:
AD/RR/II/08/09-3285 dt. 13.08.2010, the pay of Capt. D.K. Mohanty, Ex-D.C., PPT relieved w.e.f. 30.04.2007 to join Ennor Port, Chennai on deputation is fixed in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007 as detailed below as per Ministry Letter No.A-
29018/5/2006/PE-II dt.03.08.2010.
This has been concurred in by Finance & Accounts Department, PPT vide UOI No.270/FA dt.03.02.2011."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Pursuant to approval of the competent authority for appointment of the Petitioner as the Chairman and Managing Director of Dredging Corporation of India Limited, shortly, DCI, due communication was made vide letter dated 18.11.2011 to the Company Secretary, DCI regarding such approval that the Petitioner be appointed so for a period of five years from the date of his assumption of W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 21 of 40 charge of the post or till the date of his superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest. Pursuant to such approval, the Petitioner was relieved from his post of Director (Marine Services), EPL, vide office order dated 29.11.2011 in order to enable him to take up his new assignment, indicating therein that he will relinquish charges of his post.
On being so appointed, the Petitioner vide letter dated 01.12.2011, tendered his resignation before the Chairman, PPT. The contents of said letter are extracted below for ready reference.
" Dt.1st Dec.2011 The Chairman, Paradip Port Trust, PARADIP Dear Sir, Sub: Technical Resignation to the Post of Dy. Conservator, PPT-Reg.
Pursuant to the letter no.po-28028/16/2010- DCI, dt. 18th Nov. 2011 of Ministry, I have joined Dredging Corporation of India Ltd., as Chairman and Managing Director with effect from 30 th Nov. 2011 W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 22 of 40 after being relieved from Ennore Port Limited on 29 th Nov. I was on deputation to Ennore Port Limited. Since the appointment with DCI is on permanent absorption basis, I wish to submit my technical resignation to the post of Deputy Conservator, PPT with effect from 29th Nov. 2011.
It is requested that my pensionary and terminal benefits may kindly be settled at the earliest, and P.F. amount may please be transferred to DCI Employees' Contributory Provident Fund.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Capt. D.K. Mohanty) Chairman and Managing Director, D.C.I."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Admittedly, while tendering resignation, a request was made by the Petitioner to the Chairman, PPT to settle his pensionary and terminal benefits at the earliest and transfer the P.F. amount to the DCI Employees' Contributory Provident Fund.
Because of inaction of PPT, the Petitioner wrote to the Joint Secretary (Ports & Shipping), Ministry of W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 23 of 40 Shipping vide letter dated 27.01.2012 requesting thereby to advice the Management of PPT to settle his pensionary and terminal benefits, treating his tenure at EPL as "on deputation".
So far as fixation of pay and finalization of terms & conditions of appointment of the Petitioner as Director (Marine Services) in EPL, clarification being sought for by Ministry, the Director (Operations), EPL, vide letter dated 20.04.2012 clarified as follows:
"3: Capt. D.K. Mohanty, who was working as Deputy Port Conservator, PPT was appointed as Director (Marine Services) vide MoS letter No.A- 11013/11/98-PE.II dated 2nd April, 2007 Capt. D.K. Mohanty was maintaining his lien in Paradip Port Trust. As a result, the leave salary and pension contribution has been regularly remitted to PPT. Capt. D.K. Mohanty relinquished the charge of Director (MS) from EPL on 29.11.2011 upon his selection as Chairman cum Managing Director of Dredging Corporation of India."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. However, finally, after about seven years of such appointment of the Petitioner as Director (Marine Services) in EPL, after sanction of the President to appoint the W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 24 of 40 Petitioner as such w.e.f. 01.05.2007, a detailed terms and conditions of engagement/employment was communicated to the CMD, EPL by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Shipping (Ports Wing), vide letter dated 05.02.2014. There was no mention in the said detailed terms and conditions regarding continuance of the Petitioner's lien in PPT from the date of his appointment in EPL, i.e., 01.05.2007, till his resignation submitted before the Management of PPT on and w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Admittedly, because of the correspondence made by the EPL as well as PPT, as detailed above, the Petitioner was under a bona fide impression that he was working in EPL on deputation with his lien in PPT.
Ultimately, the Opposite Party No.2 (PPT) paid the retirement gratuity, commutation value, final GPF, encashment of unutilized EL & HPL at credit as on 30.04.2007, on 18.09.2014. Therefore, the Petitioner gave representation to the Ministry to direct the Management of PPT to make payment towards interest on the delayed payment @ 9.25% p.a. equivalent to State Bank of India's W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 25 of 40 TDR. The contents of such representation dated 03.11.2014 as at Annexure-23, being relevant, are reproduced below.
"Dt.3rd Nov.2014 To The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhavan, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001 Dear Sir, Sub: Payment of pensionary and terminal benefits of Paradip Port Trust.
This is to bring to your kind notice that recently Paradip Port Trust has released payments towards my terminal and pensionary benefits. This amount has been calculated taking into account my last pay drawn as on 30th April, 2007. This has caused me a great financial loss in way of reduced pension. Moreover, as the payment is made after a period of more than 7 years, there has been huge loss towards interest earnings. In this regard, the following is submitted:
1. As per the order of MOS vide letter no.A-
11013/11/98-PE-II, dt.2.4.2007, I had joined Ennore Port Limited (presently Kamarajar Port W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 26 of 40 Limited) on 1.5.2007 in the post of Director (Marine Services).
2. After various representation by self and constant reminders of EPL, Ministry in their letter dt.6th Feb.2014 communicated my terms of appointment as Director (marine Services) to CMD, EPL, with a copy to the Chairman, Paradip Port Trust.
3. In the month of September 2014, Paradip Port Trust made payments towards my terminal and pensionary benefits. Though the payments were due to me in the year 2007, the same has been paid after a gap of 7 years i.e. in 2014. This delayed payment has caused me a huge loss of more than Rs.22 lakhs towards interest earnings alone. There is no doubt that Paradip Port Trust has benefited from making the delayed payment.
Therefore, it is requested that Paradip Port Trust may kindly be directed to make payments towards the interest on the delayed payment @ 9.25% p.a. equivalent to State Bank of India's TDR. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Capt. D.K. Mohanty)"
(Emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 27 of 40 Pursuant to such representation, on being asked by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping to look into the grievance of the Petitioner, the FA & CAO, PPT submitted a compliance report vide letter dated 24/25.03.2015. Contents of the said letter, being relevant, are reproduced below:
"Date:24/25.03.2015 To The Secretary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Shipping, Parivahan Bahavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001.
[Kind Attention: Sri P.K. Roy, Dy. Secretary (PHRD)} Ref: F.No. PD-25021/2/2013-PD. VI dtd.21.01.2014.
Sri, With reference to the above letter the compliance is given below;
1. Paradip Port received the terms & conditions of appointment of Capt. D.K. Mohanty as Director (MS) Ennore Port Ltd (Presently Kamarajar Port Limited) on 05.02.2014. After the finalization of terms & W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 28 of 40 conditions by the Ministry, Capt. Mohanty submitted the Pension Papers on 31.07.2014. The terminal benefits i.e. commutation & gratuity was released to Capt. Mohanty on 02.09.2014. As regard Leave salary & Pension contribution for the period of service at Paradip Port, the amount was sent on 12.11.2014 to Kamarajar Port Limited.
2. The arrear of Pension from Paradip Port pertaining to the date of retirement from Paradip Port i.e. from 01.05.2007 to 31.09.2014 has been released in October, 2014 based on the communication of MoS on 05.02.2014.
3. The provident fund has been released on 10.09.2014 with interest upto 31.03.2014. The interest pertaining to the period from 01.04.2014 to 10.09.2014 will be rleased after closing of Financial year 2014-15 as the rate of interest can be ascertained only after closing of accounts.
In view of the above fats, it is pertinent to mention that Paradip Port has released the pensionary benefits to Capt. D.K. Mohanty after receipt of the pension paper based terms & conditions approved by MoS vide No.PW-
12012/6/2001-PO.I dtd. 05.02.2014. Hence there is no delay in releasing the payment by PPT. W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 29 of 40
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
FA & CAO Paradip Port Trust"
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Admittedly, almost in each and every communication made by the Petitioner, a request was made to the Ministry to continue his lien in PPT. Similar communications were also made by the Management of EPL so also PPT to the Ministry, more particularly, referring to the provisions enshrined under the DPE guidelines/terms, which permits an employee, who has come from below Board level to Board level post to keep his lien in parent department post for five years. Till approval/issuance of the detailed terms and conditions, vide letter dated 05.02.2014 regarding the Petitioner's appointment as Director (Marine Services), EPL, neither the Petitioner nor the Management of PPT or the Management of EPL was communicated/clarified by the Ministry of Shipping Road Transport & Highways, Department of Shipping (Ports Wing), rejecting or clarifying therein as to non-approval of W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 30 of 40 such request made by the Petitioner or losing his lien in the establishment of PPT.
Admittedly, as is revealed from the communication dated 11.05.2007 at Annexure-7,
immediately after relief of the Petitioner from the post of Deputy Conservator, PPT, vide office order dated 30.04.2007, the Secretary, PPT wrote to the Ministry requesting to send the detailed terms and conditions of appointment of the Petitioner as Director (Marine Service), EPL for office records and further necessary action.
19. The CMD, EPL also brought to the notice of the Ministry vide letter dated 14.05.2009 regarding the action of the Management of PPT in returning the leave salary and pensionary contribution sent by EPL for the financial year 2007-08, pursuant to which, the Director (PO), Government of India, Ministry of Shipping (Port Wing), vide letter dated 14.01.2010, wrote to the Chairman, PPT with a request to accept the leave salary, pension contribution and maintain an account at PPT, instead of clarifying therein that the Petitioner has lost his lien in PPT since the date of his joining in EPL. The Office Order dated 03.02.2011 at W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 31 of 40 Annexure-12, vide which the pay of the Petitioner was revised by PPT w.e.f. 01.01.2007, also gave an impression to the Petitioner that he is on deputation to EPL.
20. Admittedly, after appointment as the Chairman, CMD of DCI, not only the Petitioner tendered resignation before the Chairman, PPT on 01.12.2011 but also requested for grant of pensionary and terminal benefits in his favour at the earliest and to transmit the PF amount to the DCI Employees' Contributory Provident Fund. As is revealed from the record, the Management of PPT accepted the said resignation dated 01.12.2011 tendered by the Petitioner instead of making communication to the Petitioner that he has lost his lien in PPT and he should tender resignation before his new employer, i.e., EPL. That apart, in paragraph No.8 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2-Management of PPT, it has been admitted that till receipt of the terms and conditions from the Ministry, retaining of lien of the Petitioner could not be decided at Port level, which was received from the Ministry much after vide letter dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure-21). It has further been admitted by the PPT in paragraph No.16 of W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 32 of 40 the Counter Affidavit that EPL pointed out that the Petitioner is maintaining his lien in PPT and the Management of PPT accepted his leave salary, pension contribution as per kind orders of Ministry dated 14.01.2010 and 25.03.2010.
So far as the stand of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 that delay, if any, in payment of retiral dues is attributed to the Petitioner, as he submitted pension papers only on 31.07.2014, an Additional Affidavit was filed by the Petitioner indicating therein as to why he could not submit the pension papers till 31.07.2014. The stand of the Petitioner is that an employee, who has retired, for processing his pensionary dues, is required to provide "date of ending of service" or "date of retirement". The said date could not be ascertained by the Petitioner, as he was in dark regarding continuance of his lien in PPT and the detailed terms of appointment were awaiting from the Ministry till 05.02.2014. Such application along with pension papers could not be submitted by him, even though he tendered resignation before the Opposite Party No.2-PPT w.e.f. 01.12.2011.
W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 33 of 40
Though the writ petition is pending since 2016, the Opposite Party No.1-Union of India filed a Counter Affidavit only on 18.01.2024, reiterating the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2-PPT. No explanation has been tendered in the Counter regarding the reason for such inordinate delay of seven years to issue the detailed terms and conditions of the employment of the Petitioner as Director (Marine Services), EPL, despite requests being made to the said effect by the Management of PPT, Management of EPL so also the Petitioner himself to treat the said period in EPL as on deputation and to allow him to have his lien in PPT.
21. From the detailed discussion made above, this Court is of the view that even if the Petitioner tendered resignation before the Management of PPT on 01.12.2011 to join DCI, he was justified in submitting pension papers only after receiving the detailed terms and conditions of his engagement in EPL on 05.02.2014 from the MoS (Opposite Party No.1), as he was required to fill up the form for pension, wherein date of ending of service/date of retirement is to be mentioned. Though on the date of W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 34 of 40 tendering resignation before the PPT a request was made to pay the dues, including pensionary benefit, but the Petitioner was in dark and dilemma regarding what would be his date of ending of service, i.e., '01.12.2011' on which date he tendered resignation before the PPT, or '30.04.2007' on which date he was relieved from his duties by PPT enabling him to take up his new assignment in EPL.
This Court is also of the view that the Opposite Party No.1-Union of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Department of Shipping (Ports Wing) is responsible for such delay and dilemma, which compelled the Petitioner to submit his pension papers only after issuance of the detailed terms and conditions of his engagement/appointment in EPL on 05.02.2014. Such delay in submitting pension papers, which allegedly delayed the payment of after retiral dues to the Petitioner, cannot be attributed either to the Petitioner or to the Management of PPT (Opposite Party No.2).
22. In State of Kerala & others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC ( L & S) 278, the Supreme Court held as follows: W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 35 of 40
"1. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment."
(Emphasis supplied) In DD Tewari (D) (Supra), relying on the judgment in State of Kerala (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:
"7. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that in the case in hand.
8. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the amount falls W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 36 of 40 due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed."
(Emphasis supplied) Similarly, in S.K. Dua (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows:
"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
(Emphasis supplied) In a recent judgment in Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 37 of 40 Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 331, the Supreme Court held been held as follows:
"46. The common thread in the abovereferred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. From the conduct of the Opposite Parties more particularly, the Opposite Party No.1, this Court is of the view that there is no fault on the part of the Petitioner justifying denial of interest to him on the delayed payment of retirement dues and other terminal benefits w.e.f. 01.05.2007 till the date of actual payment of such dues. Had it been promptly clarified by the Opposite Party No.1(MoS) that the Petitioner will have no lien in PPT and he has ceased to be an officer of PPT w.e.f. 01.05.2007 and W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 38 of 40 request regarding his appointment/posting in EPL (Opposite Party No.3) on deputation basis is not accepted, he would have been able to submit his pension papers promptly in the year 2007, instead of waiting till 05.02.2014, when he was finally communicated about detailed terms and conditions of his employment in EPL.
24. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 (PPT) is directed to supply a detailed calculation sheet of various after retiral dues and other terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2007 and the date of actual payment of such dues and benefits by it (excepting Provident Fund) to the Opposite Party No.1 within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. The said calculation sheet should clearly indicate the number of days of delay in making such payment.
25. It is made clear that, on getting such computation/calculation sheet from the Opposite Party No.2 (PPT), the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to make payment of interest on the said amount for the delayed period @ 8.20% p.a., which is the prevalent bank rate of interest for terms deposits meant for senior citizens, within W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Page 39 of 40 a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such calculation sheet from the Opposite Party No.2, failing which, it will carry penal rate of interest @ 18% p.a. for the entire period of delay in making such payment towards retirement dues and other terminal benefits of the Petitioner for the aforesaid period.
26. With the said observation/direction, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 3rd September, 2025/Kanhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2016 Date: 06-Sep-2025 14:17:03 Page 40 of 40