Urmila Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

“The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordship's may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call for the records and after hearing the parties, allow the same and issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus or any other or further writ/writ(s), direction/directions directing quashing of the letter no.84 dated 10.1.2025 issued by Superintendent of Railway Police rejecting the Family Pension of the petitioner at Annexure -10 and further be pleased to direct the opp. party no.3 Superintendent of Railway Police, Rourkela to release family pension in favour of the petitioner at the sorrowful death of her husband late Udhaba

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

Chandra Mohanta as admissible for the interest of justice.

¶21

And pass any other order(s), direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present Petitioner is the second wife of late Udhaba Chandra Mohanta, who was working in the Railway Police Organization. The above named late Udhaba Chandra Mohanta took voluntary retirement from service on 31.03.1992. After his retirement, his pension papers were processed and he was getting pensionary benefits.

¶23

On the basis of the instruction dated 18.03.2025, learned counsel for the State contended that initially an application for deathcum-retirement gratuity was submitted by late Sadhumani Mohanta, wife of late Udhaba Chandra Mohanta. The aforesaid instruction further reveals that late Udhaba Chandra Mohanta had submitted an application for preparation of family pension in favour of his second wife, i.e. the present Petitioner, which was received by the office of the Opposite Party No.3 on 10.07.2009. Such instruction further reveals that his first wife, namely, Sadhumani Mahanta died on 27.02.1992. Thereafter, late Udhaba Chandra Mohanta married to the present Petitioner on 01.04.1992. Learned counsel for the State further contended that while this was the position, late Udhaba Chandra Mohanta died on 29.11.2022. After his death, the present Petitioner, who happens to be the second wife of the deceased Government employee, has submitted an application claiming family pension. Although her application along with all required documents have been received by the Opposite Parties, however, no final

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

decision has been taken on such application of the present Petitioner.

¶26

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful examination of the background facts of the present case, as well as on perusal of the instruction dated 18.03.2025, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3-Superintendent of Railway Police, Rourkela by filing a detailed representation. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner and take steps in accordance with the relevant pension rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Further, it is made clear that in the event it is found that the present Petitioner is entitled to family pension as per rules, then necessary steps be taken by the Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse such pensioanry benefits in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision. Any decision taken by the Opposite Parties be communicated to the Petitioner from time to time.

¶27