Benudhar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 27.02.2021, so issued by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-13 and with a further prayer to extend the benefit of Family Pension being the disabled son of the deceased Govt. servant in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-56 of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 read with Finance Department Notification dated 23.07.2011 under Annexure-2.

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s late father while continuing in service retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1982. After such retirement from service, deceased employee was sanctioned with pension and other pensionary benefits. However, while in receipt of Pension, when the deceased employee died, petitioner’s mother was sanctioned with the benefit of Family Pension.

¶16

4. 1. However, petitioner’s mother also died on 11.02.2013. On such death of the petitioner’s mother, petitioner being the disabled son of the deceased employee, moved the authority time and again to extend the benefit of Family Pension in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 56 of the aforesaid Rules.

¶17

4. 2. However, claim of the petitioner when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26009 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 09.11.2020 under Annexure-8, directed O.P. No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim. It is contended that vide order dated 12.02.2021 under Annexure-9, claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner sustained such disability in the year 1999 much after the death of the deceased employee in the year 1986.

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

4. 3. It is contended that on such rejection of the petitioner’s claim, petitioner again moved O.P. No.1 with a prayer to re-consider his claim to get the benefit of Family Pension and with a prayer to quash order dated 12.02.2021 in W.P.(C) No.11863 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 07.06.2021, directed O.P. No.1 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. However, vide order dated 27.07.2021 under Annexure-13, claim of the petitioner was again rejected.

¶21

4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was declared disabled with issuance of the disability certificate by the District Medical Board, Cuttack on 02.09.2006 under Annexure-4 series. Subsequently, another certificate was issued in his favour on 28.10.2017 by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disability. Not only that CDMO, Cuttack vide letter dated 27.11.2017, also accepted the disability of the petitioner to the tune of 60% permanent. However, on the ground that disability of the petitioner being a Locomotor Disability, petitioner was found ineligible and his claim was rejected initially vide order dated 12.02.2021 under Annexure-9 and subsequently vide order dated 27.07.2021 under Annexure-13.

¶22

4. 5. However, in course of hearing, it is contended that in the Notification issued by the Finance Department on 06.08.2022 under Annexure-14, it has been clearly

¶23

Page 3 of 7

¶24

// 4 //

¶25

clarified that a dependent disabled child who is suffering from any disorder or disability after attainment of 25 years can be granted the benefit, if manifestation of such disorder or disability occurred during life time of the Government servant/pensioner.

¶26

4. 6. It is contended that since petitioner became disabled in the year 2006 during the life time of the wife of the deceased employee while in receipt of Family Pension, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of Family Pension in terms of the Notification issued by the Finance Department on 06.08.2022 under Annexure-14. It is accordingly contended that while quashing the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 under Annexure-13, O.P. No.1 be directed to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim taking into account the Notification issued by the Finance Department on 06.08.2022 under Annexure-14.

¶27

5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner’s father while in service retired on 30.11.1982. However, while in receipt of pension, the deceased employee died on 13.11.1986 and on his death, wife of the deceased employee was sanctioned with Family Pension.

¶28

5. 1. However, while in receipt of Family Pension, wife of the deceased employee also died on 11.02.2013. After such death of Family Pensioner, petitioner moved the

¶29

Page 4 of 7

¶30

// 5 //

¶31

authority seeking grant of Family Pension in terms of provisions contained under Rule-56 of the Rules. Pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26009 of 2020, petitioner’s claim was considered and rejected on the ground that petitioner became disabled in the year 1999, which is after the death of the deceased employee in the year 1986.

¶32

5. 2. It is contended that on the face of such rejection of the petitioner’s claim, when this Court directed for reconsideration vide order dated 07.06.2021 under Annexure-12, petitioner’s claim was again reconsidered. However, when it was found that petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit having sustained the disability after the death of the deceased employee, his claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 under Annexure-13.

¶33

5. 3. It is also contended that stipulation contained in the Notification dated 06.08.2022 under Annexure-14, cannot be made applicable to the claim of the petitioner, as petitioner has not sustained the disability during the lifetime of the Government Servant/Pensioner. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 so issued by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-13.

¶34

6. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.3 on the other hand made his submission basing on

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

// 6 //

¶37

the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by him. While making similar submission as made by learned Addl. Standing Counsel, it is contended that since petitioner became disabled after death of the deceased employee/pensioner, stipulation contained in the Resolution Dated 06.08.2022 of the Finance Department cannot be made applicable to the claim of the petitioner.

¶38

6. 1. It is further contended that since no document has been enclosed showing that petitioner became disabled during the lifetime of the deceased employee, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶39

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner’s father while in service retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1982. Thereafter, while in receipt of Pension, he died on 13.11.1986. After such death of the deceased employee, petitioner’s mother was sanctioned with the Family Pension till she died on 11.02.2013. After such death of the Family Pensioner, petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit being the disabled son of the deceased employee. As found from the record, claim of the petitioner was initially rejected vide order dated 12.02.2021 under Annexure-9 inter alia on the ground that petitioner

¶40

Page 6 of 7

¶41

// 7 //

¶42

sustained such disability in the year 1999, which is after the death of the deceased employee/pensioner.

¶43

7. 1. When this Court directed for re-consideration vide order dated 07.06.2021 under Annexure-12, claim of the petitioner was again considered and rejected vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 under Annexure13.

¶44

7. 2. Since no document is available in the record that petitioner sustained such disability during the life time of the deceased employee/pensioner, as per the considered view of this Court, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. Stipulation contained in Finance Department Resolution dated 06.08.2022 under Annexure-14, as per the considered view of this Court is also not applicable as petitioner never sustained such disability during the lifetime of the Govt. servant/pensioner.

¶45

7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶46

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶47

Basudev

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Page 7 of 7

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 20-Sep-2025 17:16:22

Benudhar Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benudhar Biswal 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

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Palei Vs State of Odisha

Rajanikanta Patel Vs State of Odisha

Amulya Vs State

Sujit Debata Vs Bilash Kumar Behera,Engnr.-in-Chief,Odisha Water Supply and Swerage Board,Cuttack

Sunil Kumar Patra Vs Odisha Legislative Assembly