The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2649 of 2024 Laltu Kumar Chakravarty …. Petitioner Mr.R.C.Swain, Advocate -versus- Principal Accountant General (A&E), Bhubaneswar& another …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr.A.P.Das, A.S.C. Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G. (A&E), Odisha CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 06.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for the A.G. (A&E), Odisha. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application in representing his mental illness brother Biswanath Chakravarty with the following prayer: “The Petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to release family pension as due and admissible with effect from 01.03.2018 in favour of the brother of the Petitioner by quashing the letter of rejection dated 28.02.2023 under Annexure-6 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 within a stipulated time in the interest of justice. And pass such order/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” // 2 // 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that being aggrieved by the orders dated 28.02.2023 under Annexure-6, whereunder the Office of the Opposite Party No.1 has returned the pension papers of the Petitioner to the Administrative Dept., the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the father of the Petitioner, who was working under Opposite Party No.3 died on 10.10.1998, thereafter, the mother of the Petitioner was getting family pension. The mother of the present petitioner died on 28.02.2018. After the death of the mother the Petitioner being a disabled person, applied for disability family pension with a disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Authority issued on 09.03.2022. The Office of the Opposite Party No.3 forwarded the pension papers of the Petitioner to the Opposite Party No.1 on 29.04.2022. The Office of Opposite Party No.1 has returned the pension papers on two occasions as has been referred to hereinabove under Annexures-5 & 6 on different dates. Being aggrieved by such illegal and arbitrary conduct of the Opposite Party No.1 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.1 by taking into consideration the clarification of the Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022 with regard to payment of disability family pension. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in reply to the stand taken by the office of Opposite Party No.1 referred to a order of this Court in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik vs. State of Odisha & ors. in W.P.(C) No.2879 of 2023 disposed of on 19.05.2023. In the // 3 // aforesaid case, this Court while considering the clarification of the Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022 in paragraph-14 of the order has held as follows:- 14. Accordingly, this court has no hesitation to hold that the letter dated 06.08.2022 has been issued without having any jurisdiction and authority to issue such a letter. Moreover, the content of such letter are in conflict with the expressed provision contained in sub-rule(5) of Rule-56 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that letter dated 06.08.2022 of the Finance Department is illegal and contrary to the rules. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the orders passed in the Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case (supra) was assailed by the Opposite Parties by filing a W.A. No.3097 of 2023. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 has dismissed the writ appeal thereby the order dated 19.05.2023 has attained finality. 7. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand contended that keeping in view the clarification of the Finance Dept. No.19813/F, dated 06.08.2022, the Opposite Parties considered the case of the Petitioner and it was found that the family pension is not admissible in case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the pension papers have been returned to the Pension Sanctioning Authority with a request to review/ re-examine the same and to re-submit with the concurrence of the Finance Dept. In such view of the matter, he submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 has not committed any illegality in returning the pension papers to the Pension Sanctioning Authority. He also contended that since there is no concurrence of Finance Dept., the Opposite Party No.1 is finding of difficult to accept the recommendation of the Pension // 4 // Sanctioning Authority and accordingly sanction disability family pension to the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, he submitted that the present writ application is premature and accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the Pension Sanctioning Authority has already recommended the case of the Petitioner as it appears from the record. However, he further contended that the Opposite Party No.1 has rejected the same by taking into consideration the clarification of the Finance Dept. as has been discussed hereinabove. He further contended that the Pension Sanctioning Authority be directed to take specific Finance Dept. concurrence and in the event the Petitioner is found eligible for such disability family pension then the case may be re-submitted again to the Office of the Opposite party No.1. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel also submitted that the writ application is premature, hence the same should be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court found that the application of the Petitioner for grant of disability family pension was forwarded by the Pension Sanctioning Authority on two occasions and on all two occasions such application has been returned by the Office of the Opposite Party No.1 and that the same is not in conformity with the clarification of the Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022. The orders under Annexures-6 is under challenge in the present writ application. This Court on a further examination of the order cited by learned counsel for the Petitioner, i.e. in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case (supra), // 5 // observed that the clarification of the Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022 has been taken note of and the same has been considered by this Court in the aforesaid case. After a detailed analysis this Court in the aforesaid case has come to a conclusion that the letter dated 06.08.2022 has been issued without having any jurisdiction and authority to issue such letter and that the content of such letter are in conflict with the expressed provision contained in sub-rule 5 of Rule- 56 of OCS Pension Rules, 1992 and finally this Court has held that the letter of the Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022 is illegal and contrary to the rules. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of law as well as the factual position and keeping in view the specific finding of this Court in para-14 in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by setting aside the orders under Annexure-6. Accordingly, the orders under Annexures-6 is hereby set aside. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to re-submit the pension papers to the Opposite Party No.1 within two weeks from today. Further, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the same in the light of the order dated 19.05.2023 passed in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case (supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. In the event the Opposite Party No.1 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner’s case is covered by the aforesaid order, then similar benefits be extended to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of taking such a decision. This Court further directs the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Odisha, Finance Dept. to accord necessary approval/ concurrence for grant of such disability family // 6 // pension in the event the Pension Sanctioning Authority recommends the case of the Petitioner for grant of such pension without causing any further delay in the matter. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 12. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Feb-2024 11:20:04