Kadambari Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶19

“In the facts and circumstances narrated above and in the interest of justice, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, call for the records and after hearing from the parties be pleased to direct the opp. parties not to disburse any family pension, pensionary benefits and other service benefits to the opp. party No.6.

¶20

Page 1 of 5.

¶21

And further be pleased to direct the opp. parties to disburse entire pensionary benefit and other service benefits in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

The factual background leading to filing the present writ petition, in short, is that the Petitioner is the wife of the deceased Government employee, namely Late Harish Chandra Mohanta. After the death of the Petitioner’s husband, her son Ranjan Kumar Mohanta was appointed as a Junior Clerk at Betnoti College under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the year 2012. Thereafter the son of the Petitioner Ranjan Kumar Mohanta married to the Opposite Party No.6 on 04.03.2017. Immediately after the marriage, the Opposite Party No.6 left the matrimonial home. While this was the position, the above named Ranjan Kumar Mohanta died in harness on 08.11.2022.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, alleged that Opposite Party No.6 has remarried in the meantime and she has blessed with a child. As such, she has become ineligible to receive the pensionary and other benefits as is due and admissible to the deceased Government employee. In course for his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the letter dated 28.11.2025 at Annexure-5 series and submitted before this Court that the Opposite Party No.6 earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3669 of 2025 which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated

¶25

Page 2 of 5.

¶26

13.02.2025 directing the Opposite Parties to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in that case (Opposite Party No.6 in the present writ petition).

¶27

The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Opposite Party No.6 by misleading this Court has obtained an order and on the basis of such order, the Government Opposite Parties are about to disburse the final family pension as well as the other financial benefits as is due and admissible to Late Ranjan Kumar Mohanta. He further contended that the Petitioner being the mother of the deceased Government employee is the only surviving legal heir, since the Opposite Party No.6-daughter-in-law, because of her subsequent marriage, is ineligible to receive the family pension. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to treat the present Petitioner as the legal heir of Late Ranjan Kumar Mohanta and the family pension as well as the other financial benefits as is due and admissible be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the grievance involved in the present writ petition and further considering the fact that the Petitioner is not approached the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the competent

¶29

Page 3 of 5.

¶30

authority to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law and the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 within a stipulated period of time.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of their submissions, further taking note of the documents annexed to the writ petition and keeping in view the nature of relief sought for in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the grievance of the present Petitioner as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that in the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1 along with a certified copy of this order, the Opposite Party No.1 shall conduct an inquiry through the Regional Director, Education of Balasore or any other competent authority by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as all affected parties and redressed the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is further directed that in the event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to any pensionary benefits as per the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and in the absence of any other legal impediments, then necessary follow up steps be taken to ensure that such amount as is due and admissible to the Petitioner be sanctioned and disbursed in

¶32

Page 4 of 5.

¶33

favour of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks. It is further clarified that since an inquiry is already going on by the Regional Director of Education, Balasore, as is evident from letter dated 28.11.2025 at Annexure-5 series, it would be desirable that the Regional Director of Education, Balasore be directed to conduct a composite inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and submit a report before the Opposite Party No.1 for taking a final decision in the matter. It is further directed that disbursal of the amount as is due and admissible to late Ranjan Kumar Mohanta shall be subject to the outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the Regional Director of Education, Balasore and the consequential orders to be passed by the Opposite Party No.1.

¶34