The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Miss Monalisa Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented its Commissioner-cum- and Mass … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.P. Sahoo, Advocate (Bhubaneswar) For Opp. Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 15th October, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.P. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Dash, learned AGA for State - Opposite Parties. 2. The Petitioner has prayed for release of death-cum-retirement gratuity of her aunt (piusi) who retired from service as Headmaster of Manapur High School in the district of Jajpur. WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 3. Admittedly the deceased employee died on 18th March, 2020 and she retired from service from 31st May, 2018. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that her aunt who was a retired government servant nominated her under Annexure-1 to receive the gratuity payable to the deceased employee. 5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite the nomination made in favour of present Petitioner by the deceased retired employee under Annexure-1, the authorities have refused to grant the same in her favour on the ground that she is not a family member of the deceased retired employee. 6. Rule 53 of the OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 authorizes the government servant to make nomination in Form-C conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the gratuity payable under Rule 49 of said rules. Clause (i) to sub-Rule 1 of Rule 53 prescribes that the nomination shall not be in favour of any person other than the members of his family, and Clause (ii) prescribes that in the event the government servant has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons or a body of individuals. WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 7. Taking aid of such provisions contained in Clause (ii), it is submitted that since the government employee namely Sarojini Mohapatra had nominated present Petitioner as per Annexure-1 to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable in terms of Rule 49 of the OCS Pension Rules in respect of the gratuity payable to her, the order of rejection of the authorities under Annexure-3 is bad in the eye of law where by taking recourse of Rule 80 of the OCS Pension Rules, the eligibility of present Petitioner has been negatived. 8. Rule 49 of the OCS Pension Rules authorizes payment of death or retirement gratuity in favour of the government servant upon completion of the qualifying service on his/her retirement or death. Rule 53 makes provisions for nomination by a government servant in favour of such person or persons for the right to receive the gratuity payable under Rule 49. 9. In the instant case admittedly the government servant died much after her retirement. Her date of retirement is 31st May, 2018 and she died on 18th March, 2020. Therefore, since she retired from service upon superannuation, she is entitled to receive her gratuity payable as per Rule 49 of the OCS Pension Rules. It is not that the WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 government servant namely Sarojini Mohapatra died before her retirement. Since she was allowed to retire on superannuation she is entitled to receive the retirement gratuity and not any other person on her behalf. So the contention of the Petitioner that the government servant had nominated her to receive the retirement gratuity does not qualify the reasons in favour of the Petitioner. 10. Rule 52 of 1992 Rules emumerates the provisions regarding disbursal of gratuity upon death of a government servant while in service or after his retirement without leaving a family behind him. It is prescribed that in absence of a nomination by the government servant, the amount of gratuity shall be payble to the person in whose favour a succession certificate in respect of gratuity in question has been granted by the competant court of law. 11. Here in the instant case, admitedly the government servant, Sarojini Mohapatra, did not leave a family behind her. As per the legal heir certificate issued by the authority she has three married brothers and one married sister. The retired government servant was unmarried and the petitioner is her neice. Rule 53 of the 1992 Rules authorises the government servant to nominate a person or persons to receive the gratuity in two eventualitites, first, where the WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 government servant has a family and secondly, he has no family. Rule 49 defines the family members entitled to receive the gratuity in absence of the government servant. It is true that Sarojini Mahapatra prior to her retirement on 31-05-2018 did not submit her nomination to receive the gratuity in her absence. According to the contention of the petitioner, the purported nomination issued in favour of the petitioner undrer Annexture 1 has been submitted on 24-09-2019. So the question arises that, whether the term ‘governmnt servant’ used in Rule 53 would qulify to include a retired government servant? 12. The provisions of Rule 49 of 1992 Rules speaks of payment of gratuity upon death or retirement of the government servant. In other words, the gratuity would be payble in case of death or retirement of the government servant, and not upon death after retirement. Once the government servant retires the entitlement to receive the gratuity comes upon the government and not in favour of any other person on her behalf irrespective of the fact of nomination made by the government in terms of Rule 53. In the given facts of the present case, the government servant retired validly upon surperannuation and she in-course of her service period as a government servant did WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 not choose to make a nomination in terms of Rule 53. When she died after retirement, Rule 52 of 1992 Rules comes into play and not the provisons of Rule 53 to authorise her to make any nomination in the capacity of a retired government servant. Therefore the provisons of Rule 52 of 1992 Rules will decide the entitlement of payment of gratuity upon such person as the successor of the government servant in term of succession certificate, if any, granted by the competent court court of law and not in favour of a purported nominee made after retirement of the government servant de hors the law. 13. It needs to be mentioned here that the gratuity claimed by the petitioner is not a death-cum-retirement gratuity but it is the retirement gratuity of the government servant as she was allowed to retire upon superannuation and lived around 2 years after her retirement. Therefore the contention that the petitioner that she is eligible to receive the death gratuity of the retired government servant based on the nomination made under Annexure-1 is totally misconceived. Nonetheless, when the government servant is alive on the date of superannuation and has validly retired from service upon superannuation, the question of nomination to receive the death- WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Oct-2025 11:02:31 cum-retirement gratuity by any person other than the government servant does not arise. As such the entire claim of the petitioner being found misconceived is not entertained.
Decision
14. The writ petition is dismissed. M.K. Panda/P.A ( B.P. Routray) Judge WP(C) No.2439 of 2022 Page 7 of 7