Disposed

Ratnaprava Mishra v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC3 Aug 2017WP(C)/18386/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a widow, sought payment of Group Insurance Scheme benefits deferred at her late husband's death due to pre-1994 norms. The court disposed of the writ application by directing opposite parties to examine entitlement based on specific Finance Department Resolutions and seek the petitioner's consent to deduct contributions before paying the balance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite parties to consider the case for payment of G.I.S. sum assured according to Finance Department Resolutions within two months.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was serv ing as Assistant Teacher in Chandimata High School under the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal. He was promoted to the rank of Headmaster in the said school, but he met untimely death on 15. 4.2009 leaving behind his widow and other children. During his service period he was a member of the Group Insurance Scheme (G.I.S.) and accordingly deduction was made from his salary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the opp. Parties included the Non-Government Aided Schools under the Scheme. From time to time deduction was being made unde r the Scheme from the salary of the petitioner, but she alleged that till death of her husband , no deduction was made under the Finance Department Resolution dated 9.3.1999 from his salary so as to extend the benefit to the petitioner. So, he prays for a direction to the opp. parti es to disburse the balance amount of G.I.S. to the petitioner.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department submits that they have filed additional counter affidavit and in that additional counter affidavit it has been state d that after 16.4.1994 the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit as prayed for. He adm its that the petitioner was a member of the said Scheme, but according to the norms as prescr ibed under Annexure-E /3, husband of the petitioner has been paid the G.I.S. amount after his untimely death in the pre-revised scale of pay.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, regard being had to t he facts and circumstances of the case since there is limited grievance, without going to the merit of the case, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the opp. Parties 1 and 3 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for payment of the sum assured on the G .I.S. as per the Finance Department Resolution dated

9.3.1999 which has been confirmed under paragraph-12 of the Finance Department Resolution date d 23.9.2011 under Annexure-A of the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks after affo rding reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and take a decision under Annexu re-E/3 whether husband of the petitioner is entitled or not. In case under Annexure-E/3 husban d of the petitioner is entitled, the said benefit should be extended to her husband and after him, to the petitioner.

6. It is made clear that while taking decision, the opp. Parties 1 and 3 would take into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has no objection if the con tribution would be deducted from the benefit accrued under the Scheme as per the Finance Depar tment Resolution dated 9.3.1999 to the petitioner and pay the rest amount to the petitioner.

Ratnaprava Mishra v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnaprava Mishra v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Ch.Panda Vs State of Orissa

Kashinath Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Tofan Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Parameswar Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Babu@Dipak Routray Vs State of Orissa

Prafulla Ku.Mahanta Vs State of Orissa