Dismissed¶37

Kalpana Maharana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Jan 2025WP(C)/17178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nirman Shramik Kalyana Yojana death benefit claim by widow; Odisha Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board; Rule 267(1) and Rule 267(3), Odisha Building and Other Construction Worker (RE & CS) Rules, 2002; cessation of beneficiary status on continuous three-year default in annual contribution (Rs.50/- per annum); no provision for communication of cessation or cessation certificate; registration No. ODNYG 001022661; writ petition dismissed by K.R. Mohapatra, J., High Court of Orissa, order dated 07.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court found as an admitted fact that the petitioner's husband had not deposited membership contribution for a consecutive period of three years, and there was no document on record showing that he had deposited contribution till his death as an active member of the Board. ¶36

Kalpana Maharana Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, widow of a registered construction worker, is entitled to the benefit under the Nirman Shramik Kalyana Yojana notwithstanding her husband's default in payment of membership contribution for three consecutive years. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's husband ceased to be a member of the Board for non-payment of membership contribution, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the said Rules/Yojana.

¶36

Key takeaways

There is no provision in the Rules to communicate cessation of membership of a registered construction worker, and likewise no provision under the Rules to issue a Cessation Certificate; accordingly the plea based on non-communication fails.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa by a widow seeking extension of benefits under the Nirman Shramik Kalyana Yojana (rupees two lakh with Rs.5,000/- funeral expenses) following the death of her husband, late Pramod Maharana, a registered construction worker (Regn. No. ODNYG 001022661) under the Odisha Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board. The State contended, relying on Rule 267(1) and Rule 267(3) of the Odisha Building and Other Construction Worker (RE & CS) Rules, 2002, that the husband having defaulted in payment of the annual contribution of Rs.50/- for three consecutive years ceased to be a beneficiary. The petitioner argued that the default was never communicated and no cessation certificate was issued. Held, dismissing the petition: the husband's non-deposit of contribution for three consecutive years stood admitted and there was no record of deposit till death; he having ceased to be a member of the Board, the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the Rules/Yojana; and the Rules contain no provision for communicating cessation of membership or issuing a cessation certificate.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 10-Jan-2025 15:19:58

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 17178 of 2024

¶5

Kalpana Maharana …. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Judhisthir Sahoo, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

State of Odisha and others

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.01.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to Opposite Parties to extend the benefit under the Nirman Shramik Kalyana Yojana in her favour.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that husband of the Petitioner, namely, late Pramod Maharana was a registered construction worker having registration No. ODNYG 001022661 under the Odisha Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board (for short, ‘the Board’). During his life time, he was paying membership contribution regularly. On his death, the Petitioner being the widow is entitled to the benefit under the said Yojana to the tune of rupees two lakh together with funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/-. That having not been extended in favour of the Petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

¶19

Mr. Mishra, learned ASC submits that although husband of the Petitioner was a registered construction worker under the Board, but he defaulted in paying membership contribution for three years consecutively. Therefore, he seized to be a member of

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 10-Jan-2025 15:19:58

¶24

the Board as per Rule 267 (1) of the Odisha Building and Other Construction Worker (RE & CS) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Rules’). As such, the Petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the said Yojana vis-à-vis the Rules.

¶25

4.1 Rule 267 (1) of the Rules reads as under:-

¶26

“Every registered beneficiary shall contribute to the Fund @ Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty) per annum to be remitted to the Board through the Registering Officer entrusted with registration of beneficiaries. ……”

¶27

Rule 267 (3) of the Rules clearly stipulates that “If a beneficiary commits default in payment of contribution continuously for a period of three years, he shall cease to be a beneficiary of the fund. …..” . Thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the said Rules/ Yojana. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit should be dismissed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that husband of the Petitioner was never communicated with regard to his default, if any, in making payment of membership contribution. Had he been communicated he would have deposited the amount with permission of the Secretary of the Board as per Rule 267 (3) of the Rules, which is quoted hereunder.

¶29

“(3) If a beneficiary commits default in payment of contribution continuously for a period of three years, he shall cease to be a beneficiary of the fund. However, with the permission of the Secretary of the Board or any Officer authorized by him in this behalf, the membership may be resumed on payment of arrears of contribution on due satisfaction of the Secretary or authorized officer subject to the condition that such resumption shall not be allowed more than twice.

¶30

Provided that if a registered beneficiary is willing to deposit his annual contribution after cessation of membership, he may be registered afresh as a new beneficiary under the Board with due procedure as in case of new registration. But, he should not avail the entitled benefit or assistance which he has already availed during his previous registration.”

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

// 3 //

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CU TTACK Date: 10-Jan-2025 15:19:58

¶35

Had he been intimated with regard to his default during his life time, the husband of the Petitioner could have registered himself afresh. That having not been done, no fault can be found out with the Petitioner or her husband. Admittedly, husband of the Petitioner was a registered construction worker under the Rules. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit after death of her husband. No cessation certificate was ever issued to husband of the Petitioner to make him aware of his default in payment of membership contribution.

¶36

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court finds that admittedly husband of the Petitioner had not deposited the membership contribution for a consecutive period of three years. There is also no document on record to show that husband of the Petitioner had deposited membership contribution till his death being an active member of the Board. Since the husband of the Petitioner ceased to be a member of the Board to get the benefit under the Rules/ Yojana having not made the membership contribution, the Petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the said Rules/Yojana. Moreover, there is no provision in the said Rules to communicate cessation of membership of any registered construction worker. There is also no provision under the Rules to issue Cessation Certificate, as alleged.

¶37

As such, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶38

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶39

s.s satapathy

¶40

Page 3 of 3

Kalpana Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Balaji Melters Vs Cesu

M/S.Balaji Melters Vs Cesu

Shreeya Mohanty Vs Executive Engineerelectrical

Satyajit Rout Vs Sujata Biswal

Harekrushna Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Tilu Khatua Vs State of Odisha