Partly allowed¶19

Akshaya Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Nov 2025WP(C)/13598/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC writ petition; non-release of terminal benefits; pension; DCRG; delayed payment; interest at 9% per annum from 01.10.2023; six months of retirement; Writ of Mandamus; pension not a bounty; intra-departmental dispute; Controller of Accounts; District Education Officer (DEO); recovery of interest from erring officials; Public Exchequer; reliance on Devaki Nandan Prasad AIR 1983 SC 1134; D.S. Nakara AIR 1983 SC 130; State of Kerala v. M. Padmanavan Nair AIR 1985 SC 356; partly allowed; no costs; judge Dixit Krishna Shripad; advocates K.K. Swain and Mr. Jee (AGA).

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing the OPs to pay the petitioner interest at 9% per annum on the delayed terminal benefits with effect from 01.10.2023, recoverable from the erring officials of the department; no costs. ¶19

Akshaya Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's terminal benefits (pension, DCRG etc.) would be sanctioned and released by the State authorities despite the intra-departmental dispute over compliance of pension papers. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Pension is not a bounty; delayed payment of terminal benefits must suffer levy of interest, and intra-departmental issues and procedures are not recognised by the Apex Court as a ground for denying interest; no contra decisions having been brought to the Court's notice, interest has to be paid.

¶18

Key takeaways

The interest component may be recovered from the erring officials in accordance with law personally, so that no loss is occasioned to the Public Exchequer.ratio¶18
A Writ of Mandamus issues to the OPs to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.10.2023, the date when the petitioner completed six months of retirement; the interest component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.13598 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Dixit Krishna Shripad J., 28.11.2025): Petitioner's grievance was non-sanctioning and non-release of terminal benefits (pension, DCRG etc.), amid an intra-departmental dispute between the Controller of Accounts and the DEO over compliance of pension papers; an earlier order dated 21.11.2025 had threatened the delinquent officials with personal appearance/arrest. By the time of this hearing the terminal benefits stood sanctioned vide order dated 26.11.2025 (compliance affidavit of OP No.3), rendering that aspect infructuous. Holding pension to be not a bounty, and relying on Devaki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1134, D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 and State of Kerala v. M. Padmanavan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356, the Court held that delayed payment of terminal benefits attracts interest and that intra-departmental delays are no ground for denying it. The writ petition was partly allowed: a Writ of Mandamus issued to pay interest at 9% per annum from 01.10.2023 (when the petitioner completed six months of retirement), with the interest component recoverable personally from the erring officials so that no loss falls on the Public Exchequer; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.13598 of 2025

¶3

Akshaya Kumar Panda

¶4

State of Odisha & others

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate -Versus…. Opposites Parties

¶7

Mr. Jee, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶10

Order No. 01.

¶11

ORDER 28.11.2025

¶12

The short grievance of the petitioner related to nonsanctioning and release of terminal benefits such as pension, DCRG etc. This Court, vide order dated 21.11.2025, had threatened the officials, who were apparently at fault and the said order reads as under:

¶13

“The intra-departmental dispute is as to the compliance of pension papers. The Controller of Accounts makes allegation against the District Education Officer (DEO), whereas the DEO says that he has complied with the requirement.

¶14

In view of the above, both the DEO and the Controller of Accounts shall be personally present before this Court on 28.11.2025. If they do not come, they run the risk of arrest and detention at the hands of Police. However, presence shall not be necessary, if in the meanwhile, all compliances are reported and positive steps are taken in the matter, in accordance with law. Call this matter on 28.11.2025.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

A carbon copy of this order to be made available to the learned AGA.”

¶17

Now, learned AGA Mr. Jee appearing for the official OPs submits that the petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as the terminal benefits have been sanctioned vide order dated 26.11.2025, which has been mentioned in the compliance affidavit filed by OP No.3 this day in the open Court after serving copy thereof on learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Petitioner does not dispute.

¶18

There is force in the submission of learned counsel Mr. Swain that pension being not a bounty, in view of Devaki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1134 followed by D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , AIR 1983 SC 130 delayed payment of terminal benefits has to suffer leavy of interest, more particularly in the light of Apex Court decision in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanavan Nair , AIR 1985 SC 356. Learned AGA very passionately opposes levy of interest contending that the delay happened because of intradepartmental issues and procedures. This is not recognized as a ground by the Apex Court, in any of the decisions, as a ground for denying interest. No contra decisions are brought to my notice. Therefore, interest has to be paid. However, the interest component may be recovered from erring officials in accordance with law personally. That would ensure that no loss is occasioned to the Public Exchequer.

¶19

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is partly allowed. A Writ of Mandamus issues to OPs to pay to the petitioner interest at

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.10.2023, when the petitioner completed six months of retirement. The interest component may be recovered from the erring officials of the department.

¶22

Now, no costs.

¶23

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶24

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶25

Prasant

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 29-Nov-2025 17:32:58

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Akshaya Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshaya Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subas Chandra Mansingh Vs State of Odisha

Jyotirmayee Jena Vs State of Odisha

Prabhati Naik Vs State of Odisha

Janakalyan Khurda Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Mecon Ltd., Jharkhand Vs M/S.Kcs Pvt. Ltd., Sundargarh

Mamata Mishra @ Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha