The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application for dispensing with certified copies of annexures related to W.P. No.13288 of 2015.
Filing of certified copy of Annexures-3 and 5 is dispensed with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.13288 OF 2015
Misc. Case No.12880 of 2015
08. 02.03.2016 This is an application for dispensing with filing of c
ertified copy of Annexures-3 and 5.
Considering the submission made, the filing of certified copy of Annex
ures-3 and 5 are dispensed with.
Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.
S.C. Parija, J.
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
W.P.(C) No.13288 of 2015
09. 02.03.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.06.20
11, passed by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No.816 of 2010
and the order dated 27.06.2014, passed in R.P. No.21 of 2011, dismissing the original applicat
ion of the applicant-petitioner as the same was hopelessly barred by limitation and the Resolu
tion of the Government dated 01.01.1964 with regard to family pension does not apply to the de
ceased employee, who retired from Government service in the year 1959.
Relevant findings of the learned Tribunal is extracted below:
9. After careful consideration, it is found that Sri Bhanja has not put up 10 yea
rs of qualifying service. The applicant is not entitled to get family pension.
10. Further, though late Bhanja retired from service in 1959 and died on 6.6.1970
(vide death certificate at Annexure-2), he has not made any claim for pension. But long therea
fter, the applicant made a representation in the year 1988 for grant of family pension, i.e. a
bout 18 years after the death of her husband, who too had retired about 11 years before the de
ath without getting any pension.
In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned ord
er so as to warrant any interference.
Writ petition being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed
S.C. Parija, J.
.
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
1
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for family pension due to lack of qualifying service and delay in claim warrants interference.
Whether the Resolution of the Government dated 01.01.1964 applies to a deceased employee who retired before it came into force.
Whether the writ petition is barred by limitation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
W.P.(C) No.13288 OF 2015
State of Orissa
S.C. Parija
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court