Charulata Pany Vs Principal Accountant General (a and E), Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Charulata Pany Vs Principal Accountant General (a and E), Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of: Opp. Party No.2 directed to take a lawful decision on Opp. Party No.1's request dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure-F) within three months, considering the State Administrative Tribunal's judgment in O.A. No.337 of 1993 (decided 17.06.1993) if applicable; Petitioner to furnish a copy of the order, the Annexure-F request and the said judgment to Opp. Party No.2 for compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, whose father was in receipt of pension under the Triple Benefit Rules, 1966 (TBS), is entitled to the benefit of family pension, given that no provision has been made by the Government entitling daughters of such TBS pensioners to family pension although such a provision exists for pensioners under the 1981 rules.

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Opp. Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on the request made by Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dt.31.03.2021 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit) within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order.

Ratio / Principle

While taking such decision, Opp. Party No.2 shall take into consideration the relevancy and effect of the judgment of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.337 of 1993 (decided 17.06.1993), if it is applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's case.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of the order, along with the request made by the Accountant General on 31.03.2021 vide Annexure-F and the judgment in O.A. No.337 of 1993, before Opp. Party No.2 for compliance.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.4470 of 2021, High Court of Orissa) filed by Charulata Pany challenging the communication dated 02.11.2020 (Annexure-1) of Opp. Party No.1 (Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha) by which her claim for family pension was returned to the B.E.O, Gondia for reference to the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education. Counsel for Opp. Party No.1 stated that since the Petitioner's father drew pension under the Triple Benefit Rules, 1966 (TBS), no Government provision yet entitles daughters of such pensioners to family pension, unlike pensioners under the 1981 rules; Opp. Party No.1's letter dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure-F) requesting the Government to decide the claim remained unanswered. Disposing of the petition, the Court (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., order dated 19.04.2024) directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on the said request within three months, taking into consideration the relevancy and effect of the State Administrative Tribunal's judgment in O.A. No.337 of 1993 (decided 17.06.1993) if applicable, and directed the Petitioner to place the order, the Annexure-F request and the said judgment before Opp. Party No.2 for compliance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C ) No.4470 of 2021

Charulata Pany …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dwivedy, Adv.

-versus-

. Principal Accountant … Opp. Parties General(A & E) Odisha Mr. S.K. Das, S.C (AG, Audit)

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER Order 19.04.2024 No

19.04.2024

15. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Instruction provided by Mr. S. Jena, learned A.G.A be kept on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the communication issued by Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dt.02.11.2020 under Annexure-1. Vide the said communication, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of family pension was sent back to the B.E.O, Gondia with a request to take up the matter with the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education Deptt.

3.1 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though the matter was sent back by Opp. Party No.1 with such a request, but no further action was taken and accordingly Petitioner is unable to get the benefit of family pension that she is otherwise entitled to.

3.2. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.1 on the other hand contended that since Petitioner’s father was in receipt of pension under the Triple Benefit Rules,1966 (TBS), no provision has been made by the Government as yet entitling the daughters of such employees to get the benefit of family pension. But in respect of the pensioners, who are getting pension under the 1981 rules, such a provision has been made by the Government.

Considering such action of Govt-Opp. Party No.2, Opp. Party No.1 vide his letter dt.31.03.2021 requested Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision with regard to the claim of the Petitioner.

3.3. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel also contended that no further communication has been issued by the GovernmentOpp.Party No.2 on the request made by Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dt.31.03.2021 under Annexure-F to the counter.

4. Mr . S. Jena, learned A.G.A on the other hand contended that if such a request has been made by Opp. Party No.1, then Opp. Party No.2 be directed to take a decision on the same.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on the request made by Opp. Party No.1 vide letter dt.31.03.2021 under Annexure-F to the counter affidavit within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

However, while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the judgment passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. NO.337 of 1993 decided on 17.06.1993 be taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the facts of the petitioner’s case.

Page 2 of 3

5.1. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order along with the request made by Accountant General on 31 . 03.2021 vide Annexure-F and so also the judgment in the above noted case before Opp. Party No.2 for compliance.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

sangita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: AUTHENTICATON OF ORDER Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 22-Apr-2024 18:44:32

Page 3 of 3