The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2113 of 2025 Saraswati Padhi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr.Swetalana Das -versus- 1) Govt of Odisha, Finance Department, represented by its Principal Secretary, Bhubaneswar. 2) The Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 3) The Superintendent of Excise, Sambalpur. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr.AkshayaPati, ASC Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for the O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Decision
ORDER 18.03.2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Accountat General (A&E), Odisha. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider her case for Page 1 of 5. grant of disability family pension in view of the provisions contained under Rule-56 of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 and pursuant to the instructions of the Finance Department vide order No.FIN-CS3-PEN- 014-2022/19813/F, dtd.06.08.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Government servant, had retired from service at the age of superannuation on 31.07.1989. Although the father of the Petitioner was receiving pensionary benefits, however, he passed away on 01.11.2001. Thereafter, the mother of the Petitioner was receiving family pension till she died on 15.06.2022. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the husband of the present Petitioner also died in the meantime on 24.03.2016. Since the Petitioner is a disabled widow lady, she was entirely dependent on her parents for her livelihood. He further submitted that after the death of the mother of the Petitioner on 15.06.2022, the family pension which was being paid to the mother of the Petitioner has been stopped, as a result of which, the Petitioner has been finding it difficult to survive on her own. Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted an application. Finally, the application submitted by the Petitioner claiming disability pension was rejected vide letter dated 17.01.2023 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Upon perusal of the impugned rejection letter, it appears that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner has become physically handicapped on 05.02.2015 i.e. long after the death of her father, who died on 10.11.2001. The decision under impugned letter has been taken by referring to the Finance Department Resolution dated 24.09.2020. While assailing the impugned rejection Page 2 of 5. letter/order dated 17.01.2023, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties, while rejecting her application, have not taken note of the medical certificate issued by the medical board under Annexure-4. He further contended that the certificate issued under Annexure-4 was issued in the year 1986, i.e. much prior to the death of the father of the present Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned rejection order is illegal and the decision contained therein is the result of non-application of mind by the authorities while considering the application of the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the Pension Sanctioning Authority had duly recommended the case of the Petitioner, however, a decision has been taken by the office of the Principal Account General (A&E), Opposite Party No.2 by referring to the Finance Department Resolution dated 24.09.2020. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the State Authorities have no role in the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim for disability pension by the Opposite Party No.2. 6. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, on the other hand, contended that on the basis of the materials available before the authorities, a decision was taken. He further contended that the Opposite Party No.2, keeping in view the Finance Department Resolution dated 24.09.2020, has taken a decision. Moreover, since there was no material on record to establish the fact that the disability, as alleged by the Petitioner, was sustained Page 3 of 5. prior to the death of the Government employee, the Opposite Party No.2 has taken a decision in terms of the Finance Department Resolution dated 24.09.2020. In such view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in passing the letter/order dated 17.01.2023. He further contended that in the event any other documents supporting the claim of the Petitioner are available, then the same may be placed before the authorities for consideration. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of the documents filed along with the writ petition, further taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the impugned letter/order dated 17.01.2023 has been passed by referring to the Finance Department Resolution dated 24.09.2020. The Resolution of the Finance Department dated 24.09.2020 provides that the disability certificate must have been obtained prior to the death of the pensioner. As it appears, the disability certificate of the year 2015 was placed before the Opposite Party No.2, the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by referring to the Finance Department Resolution dated 24.09.2020. However, there is nothing on record to establish that the certificate under Annexure-4, which was issued by a competent medical board in the year 1986, was brought on record and placed before the authorities for consideration. 8. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the impugned rejection letter/order dated 17.01.2023 has been passed Page 4 of 5. without considering the certificate under Annexure-4. Accordingly, the impugned letter/order dated 17.01.2023 under Annexure-8 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to consider the matter afresh by taking into consideration the certificate under Annexure-4 issued by the competent medical board while considering the claim of the Petitioner for grant of disability family pension. Let the Petitioner approach the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 along with a copy of this order including the medical certificate under Annexure-4 within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and take a final decision within a period of four weeks from the date of approaching the Petitioner, in terms of the Rule-56 of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to disability family pension, then the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall do well to sanction and disburse her pension within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 24-Mar-2025 12:29:54 Page 5 of 5.