Saudamini Satpathy Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause as to why they shall not be directed to sanction and release the pay family pension in her favour including the arrear family pension since 11.06.2013 and the death-Cum-Post retiral benefits of her deceased husband namely

¶19

Page 1 of 5.

¶20

Ganeswar Satpathy with accrued interest thereon.

¶21

In the event of the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute.

¶22

And further be pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper.”

¶23

The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction and release the family pension as is due and admissible along with any arrear family pension since 11.06.2013 as well as the death-cum-post retiral benefits which is payable to the deceased-husband of the present Petitioner, namely one Ganeswar Satpathy, who died in harness on 10.06.2013, along with interest on the outstanding amount.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the husband of the Petitioner was initially engaged on 18.07.1988 as a Contingent Khalasi. Thereafter, he joined on duty w.e.f. 31.07.1988. He further submitted that while the Petitioner was working as such, his service was regularized w.e.f. 31.07.2010. While working in the regular establishment as a regular employee, the husband of the Petitioner died in harness on 10.06.2013 leaving behind the present Petitioner and his legal heir. He further submitted that after the death of the deceased-government employee, the Petitioner has been running to competent authority to get the deathcum-post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the deceased-government employee. He further contended that due to inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner

¶25

Page 2 of 5.

¶26

has been devastated and that the whole family of the Petitioner is suffering due to financial crunch. Being aggrieved by the inaction by the Opposite Parties in not finalizing the claim of the present Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶27

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the case of similarly placed employee, who have earlier approached the Tribunal by filing of O.A. No.78(C) of 1998, which was disposed of on 19.09.2000 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner in that case. However, such order was not implemented, as a result of which another O.A. bearing O.A. No.777(C) of 2005 was filed. The subsequent O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to implement the order passed in the earlier O.A. The order passed in the aforesaid O.A. applications were challenged by the StateOpposite parties by filing W.P.(C) No.13852 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2018 allowed the writ petition with the following observation:-

¶28

“In our considered opinion, the petitioner has uninterruptedly served from 1975 to 2004. Thereafter, he is entitled for pension. The case of the petitioner shall be considered and he will be paid pension pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal in the earlier Original Application, O.A. No.78(C) of 1998 disposed of on 19.09.2000, which has not been challenged by the State. The necessary calculation and fixation of pension shall be done within a period of three months from today and payment all retiral dues shall be made within four months hence, i.e., on or before 31^st March, 2019. If the payment as directed above is not made, the petitioner shall be entitled for

¶29

Page 3 of 5.

¶30

interest from the date of his entitlement, i.e., the date of his retirement. While parting with the order, we make it clear that if the retiral dues of the petitioner is not paid within the time as stipulated above, the interest which is directed to be paid, shall be paid from the employee(s)/officer(s)/authority concerned, who would be responsible for such delay in calculation and payment of retiral dues of the petitioner.”

¶31

Referring to the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the above noted writ petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the above named Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13852 of 2005. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the direction given by the Tribunal as well as this Court in the earlier round of litigation at the instance of another similar placed employee. He further submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was also assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.7121 of 2020. He further contended that the said SLP has been dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2021. After dismissal of the SLP, the order passed by the Tribunal as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, has attained finality. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the husband of the present Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the Petitioner in the above noted writ petition, the Petitioner be treated in the same manner and she should also be extended with all the benefits as has been given to the Petitioner in the above noted writ petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that she has no instructions in the matter. However,

¶33

Page 4 of 5.

¶34

she further contended that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this Court. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents, including the judgments referred to hereinabove within a period of two weeks from today, she will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶35

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner keeping in view the order passed in the above noted writ petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Further, it is made clear that the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Any final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶37

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶38

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶39

Judge

¶40

S.K. Rout

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Feb-2025 09:28:06 Page 5 of 5.

Saudamini Satpathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saudamini Satpathy 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nimai Charan Behera Vs Manoj Ahuja, I.A.S.

Simanchal Mohapatra Vs Aswathy S., IAS

Ratikanta Mohanta Vs Mahendra Nath Samal,Ceo,Mayurbhanj Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bikramjit Mangaraj Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Gartia Vs State of Odisha

Saraswati Upadhyay Vs State of Odisha