Sailasuta Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.2707 of 2024

¶4

Sailasuta Mohapatra …. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. A. Pati, ASC Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate for the Accountant General

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

¶11

Order ORDER No. 09.04.2025

¶12

09.04.2025

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned

¶16

Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State

¶17

and learned counsel for the Accountant General – opposite party no.5. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The present writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash the letter dated 07.12.2023 issued by

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-5 to the writ

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 a ppl

¶22

a ppl ication and further for a direction to the opposite

¶23

parties to sanction and disburse the family pension as is due and admissible in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated time period.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that initially, the father of the petitioner, who was retired from the Government service, was getting pensionary benefits after his retirement from service till his death. After the death of the Government employee, the mother of the present petitioner was getting family pension with effect from 20.03.1992. The present petitioner is a married lady and she is living in her matrimonial house and her husband has passed away on 01.08.2014. After the death of her husband, the present petitioner was totally dependent on her mother since 01.08.2014. The mother of the petitioner, who was getting family pension and used to take care of the petitioner, died on 06.07.2016.

¶25

While the matter stood thus, the present petitioner submitted an application for grant of family

¶26

2

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed pension on 15.11.2018. The Director of Health Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK

¶29

Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 S erv ices, Odisha forwarded such application along with the documents to the Government for consideration of her claim regarding family pension. Although the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.01.2022, however, no decision has been taken on such representation as of yet.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of his argument, referring to the rejection letter dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-2 to the writ application, contended that the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she was not dependent on the pensioner prior to her death and that the mother of the petitioner has not indicated the dependency of her widowed daughter in the pension papers. The opposite parties have rejected the claim of the petitioner by referring to Rule 80 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, hereinafter “the Rules, 1992”, on the ground that the said Rules mandate that before grant of such pension, the dependency of the family pensioner must be established. Therefore, in the absence of such

¶31

3

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

documentary evidence, the proposal which was CU TTACK s ubm itted before the Government was rejected. He

¶34

Digitally Signed documentary Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK

¶35

Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 s ubm

¶36

further contended that such conduct of the opposite parties in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of family pension is not in consonance with the Rules, 1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Rule 56(5)(e) of the Rules, 1992, submitted that in the case of widowed/divorced/disabled widowed/ disabled divorced daughters even after attaining the age of twenty five years till their remarriage or death, whichever is earlier, subject to the conditions as laid down in the said Rules, they are entitled to family pension and the benefit of family pension for life shall be admissible to the widowed/divorced daughter only after cessation of the claim of disabled widowed/disabled divorced daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the case of the petitioner comes under the Rule 56(5)(e) of the Rules, 1992, the petitioner is entitled to the widowed family pension.

¶37

4

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed 7. Similarly, referring to Rule 80 of the Rules, 1992, Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK

¶40

Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 w hic h mandates for sanction of family pension and residuary gratuity on the death of a pensioner, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no embargo for grant of any family pension to the widowed daughter. He further contended that the petitioner has complied with the provision contained in Rule 80(B)(iii) of the Rules, 1992 by submitting an application in Form-K as prescribed in the Rules, 1992. However, such application has been rejected on the ground that the deceased pensioner had not indicated that the widowed daughter, i.e., the present petitioner was dependent or not. Moreover, he further contended that Rule 80 of the Rules, 1992 does not require that the dependency of the widowed daughter is to be established for getting family pension.. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned rejection letter is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same should be quashed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

¶42

5

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

submitted that although the counter affidavit has been

¶45

Digitally Signed submitted that although the counter affidavit has been Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK

¶46

Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 fil ed in the present case, however, on a careful analysis of the rejection letter dated 16.11.2021 under

¶47

Annexure-2, it can be safely said that the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the dependency of the petitioner on the pensioner was not established. He further contended that the aforesaid being a primary consideration for grant of pensionary benefit, the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in considering such aspect and rejecting the application of the petitioner, who had failed to establish such dependency by adducing the documentary evidence in support of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit,

¶48

should be dismissed.

¶49

6

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

¶52

Digitally Signed 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK

¶53

Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 af ter careful examination of the issue involved in the

¶54

writ application and further taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties, this Court found that the only issue that is required to be considered in the writ application is with regard to the eligibility of the present petitioner to get family pension after the death of the pensioner. On a perusal of the factual background of the matter, this Court observes that it is established that the petitioner became the dependent widowed in the year 2014 while her mother was alive and getting family pension. After the death of her mother, the present petitioner had applied for grant of family pension as is required under Rule 80(B)(iii) of the Rules, 1992. On a scrutiny of the aforesaid provision, this Court observes that of the deceased pensioner is survived by unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters, who have attained the age of eighteen years, such daughter may herself submit a claim in Form-K to the appointing authority. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her application in Form-K along

¶55

7

¶56

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed with all the relevant documents, which was duly Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 fo rwa rded by the authority to the Government.

¶57

fo rwa rded by the authority to the Government.

¶58

With regard to entitlement of the petitioner to the pensionary benefits, this Court analyzed Rule 56(5)(e) of the Rules, 1992, which prescribes that widowed daughters, even after attaining the age of twenty five years, are entitled to the family pension till they get remarried. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that with regard to the entitlement or eligibility of the petitioner to get family pension as the widowed daughter of the deceased pensioner. On a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection letter dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-2 to the writ application, this Court observes that such rejection letter has been passed mechanically without examining the specific provisions applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision taken vide letter dated 16.11.2021 only referred to Rule 80 of the Rules, 1992 without referring to any specific Sub-Rules and further it indicates that the said Rule mandates proof of dependency on parents prior to their death in the case of widowed

¶59

8

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

daughter. Moreover, on a scrutiny of the Rules, it does CU TTACK n ot a ppear that the same has been mandated by the

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 n ot a

¶63

Rules. However, on a scrutiny of the application of the petitioner, it appears that the same has been made strictly in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 80(B)(iii) of the Rules, 1992. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in declaring that the decision taken by the Government vide letter dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-2 is highly illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned rejection letter dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-2 is quashed. Further, this Court directs the opposite parties to reexamine the matter in terms of the Rules, 1922 as discussed hereinabove and, in the event it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension, the same shall be sanctioned and disbursed in her favour within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of today’s order.

¶64

Lastly, on perusal of the letter of the Finance Department dated 24.02.2023, issued to the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, it

¶65

9

¶66

Signature Not Verified

¶67

Digitally Signed has been clarified that the name of the Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK

¶68

Date: 11-Apr-2025 11:09:42 wi do wed/divorced pensioner of the family pension was

¶69

not mentioned in the relevant form of the pension papers. However, such letter clarifies that the procedure that is to be followed in a case where such claim has not been made. In Para-2(a) of such letter it is clearly specified that on production of the legal heir certificate of the daughter, her claim should be processed.

¶70

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶71

amit

¶72

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶73

10

Sailasuta Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sailasuta Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Bhusan Pattnaik Vs Director, Horticulture, Govt of Odisha

Manoranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Kalandi Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Routa @ Bhuta Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Balabantray @ Aju Balabantaray Vs State of Odisha