The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2627 of 2021 Pramoda Bhokta …. Petitioner Mr. L.K.Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.Rath, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
Decision
ORDER 21.02.2024 (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why a direction shall not be issued to sanction and release pension of late Trinath Prasad Bhokta in favour of the petitioner counting the period of service from 13.07.1971 to 31.05.2009 along with other pensionary benefits. After hearing the parties be pleased to direct the opp. Parties to release pension of late Trinath Prasad Bhokta in favour of the petitioner by calculating period of service of late Trinath Prasad Bhokta from 13.07.1971 to 31.05.2009 along with other pensionary benefits. A further direction be issued to the opp. Parties to release family pension in favour of the petitioner with effect from 23.06.2019 // 2 // and release the arrears till date; within a date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. And pass any other order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper.” 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner’s late husband entered into service on 30.06.1971 as a LP School Teacher under the then D.I. of School, Boudh and she was posted as such to Birsamunda LP School where she joined on 13.07.1971. 4.1 It is contended that because of her illness, her late husband though remained on leave w.e.f 04.4.1974, but at no point of time petitioner’s late husband because of such remaining on leave w.e.f 1.12.1989, was proceeded with in any proceeding with passing of any order of punishment, till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009. It is contended that Petitioner’s late husband though died on 23.06.2019, but prior to his death, he approached the authority on several occasion with a prayer to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits but without any result. 4.2. After the death of husband, petitioner moved an application on 06.03.2020 under Annexure-7 with a prayer to sanction her with family pension as due and admissible. As the same was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court in the present writ petition. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though Petitioner’s late husband remained on leave w.e.f 01.12.1989 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009, but no proceeding was ever initiated against him with passing of any order of dismissal or termination. Hence, it is to be held that her late husband retired from service on attaining the age of Page 2 of 5 // 3 // superannuation and eligible to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. It is also contended that Petitioner being the legal married wife of the deceased employee, she is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of family pension. 4.4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on an order passed by this Court 15.09.2023 in W.P.C(OAC) No.79 of 2018. Vide the said order, this Court relying on an order passed on 17.03.2022 in W.PC (OA) No.125 of 2023 held the Petitioner therein to get the benefit of minimum family pension as due and admissible. The view expressed by this Court in Para 7.1 of the said order is quoted hereunder. 7.1. Taking into account the materials available on record, more particularly the instruction provided by the DEO vide letter dt.07.08.2023, that no proceeding was ever initiated against the deceased Govt. employee, placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that the deceased employee is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of minimum pension as she has rendered qualifying service of more than 10 years prior to her remaining on leave w.e.f 11.02.1999. While holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to sanction and release the minimum family pension as due and admissible in favour of the present petitioner w.e.f 19.07.2016. The arrear pension as due admissible from 19.07.2016 as well as the current family pension be released in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is however observed that the Petitioner will not be entitled to get any other retirement benefits save and except the minimum family pension as due and admissible.” 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.4. It is contended that since Petitioner’s late husband while in service remained on unauthorized absence w.e.f 1.12.1989 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2019, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 42 (2) of the Orissa Service Code, read with Rule 36 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // deceased employee is not entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. 5.1. Since the deceased employee was not eligible to get the benefit of pension, petitioner being the wife is also not eligible to get the benefit of family pension. It is accordingly contended that the claim of the Petitioner after due consideration has been rightly rejected by Opp. Party No.4. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that Petitioner’s husband entered into service on 13.7.1971. As admitted petitioner’s husband though remained on unauthorized absence w.e.f.1.12.1989 but no proceeding whatsoever was initiated with passing of any order of punishment till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009. 6.1. In view of such inaction on the part of opp. parties in not taking any action against the deceased employee for his remaining on unauthorized absence w.e.f 1.12.1989 till he retired on 31.05.2009. It is to be held that Petitioner’s late husband continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009. However, considering the fact that the deceased employee prior to his death never was sanctioned with pension, this Court placing reliance on the order passed in W.P.C (OAC) No.739 of 2018, held the Petitioner eligible and entitled to get the benefit of minimum family pension from the date her husband died on 23.06.2019. 6.2. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party No.4 to take effective steps for sanction of minimum family pension as due and admissible w.e.f 23.06.2019 in favour of the Petitioner and release Page 4 of 5 // 5 // the same along with arrear within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner will not be eligible and entitled to get any other benefits save and except the minimum family pension as directed. Consequentially, the impugned order under Annexufre-6 is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Feb-2024 12:11:56 Page 5 of 5