The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6334 of 2024 Ravva Nagamalli …. Petitioner Mr.S. Pattanatik, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus-
Legal Reasoning
…. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Mohapatra, A.S.C. Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G. Odisha CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 20.03.2024 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 & Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for A.G., Odisha. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is prayed that your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon he Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the order dated 01.02.2023 under Annexure-11 shall not be quashed. And this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to extend family pension in favour of the petitioner a divorced daughter of the deceased Government employee. And, if the opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient or false cause makes the said Rule Nisi absolute. And pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court deems think fit and proper.” 4. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ // 2 // application in short, is that, the Petitioner is the daughter of the ex- govt. employee (pensioner). The father of the Petitioner, who was a govt. employee, retired from Govt. Service on 13.06.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter the pension papers were issued in favour of the father of the Petitioner bearing PPO No.352478 from the Special Treasury Jeypore on 01.07.1997. The father of the Petitioner was receiving the pensionary benefits. While the matter stood thus, on 10.05.2001, the Petitioner, who is the daughter of the ex-govt. employee, got married. While the matter stood thus, the father of the Petitioner died on 11.01.2015. After the death of the father (ex-govt. employee), the wife of the govt. employee, who is the mother of the present Petitioner, was receiving the pensionary benefits. The present Petitioner after her marriage, was being subjected to harassment and torture by her in-laws. As a result of which she approached the Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam by filing FCOP No.454 of 2019 on 25.03.2019. While the aforesaid divorce proceeding was pending, the mother of the Petitioner died on 03.09.2019. Finally, learned Family Court granted the decree of Divorce on 15.10.2019 under Annexure-3 to the writ application. 5. On perusal of the decree divorce dated 15.10.2019 under Annexure-3 is observed that on the point No.1 learned Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam has specifically observed that the Petitioner was given out of her matrimonial house in the month of April, 2014. Further, such fact remains unchallenged by the husband of the present Petitioner, who was the respondent in the above noted decree proceeding. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned Judge Family Court has granted a decree of divorce. From the analysis of the aforesaid decree of divorce it appears that the Petitioner was staying with her father from April, 2014 till his death on 11.01.2015 // 3 // and thereafter that with her mother till she died on 03.09.2019. Thereafter, at the time of the death of the pensioner, the Petitioner was dependant on her father initially, thereafter on her mother for her survival along with her child. Although a decree of divorce was granted on 15.10.2019, however, the fact remains that the Petitioner was separated from her husband since April, 2014 which is the matter of record. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to grant the family pension as is permissible under Rule 80 2 (B) (iii) of the Odisha Pension Rules under the 1992. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the case of the Petitioner was duly considered by the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that vide order dated 01.02.2023 under Annexure-11, the claim of the Petitioner for sanction of family pension to a divorce daughter, has been rejected by the authorities holding that the same is devoid of merit in view of 80 2 (B) (iii) of the OCS (pension rules) 1992 and Finance Dept. Letter dated 24.09.2020. 8. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Principal Accountant General further specifically referring to the letter of the Finance Dept. notification 26253/F dated 24.09.2020 submitted that in view of the aforesaid letter the Petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. It was submitted that the writ application is devoid of merit, 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 and keeping in view decree of divorce under Annexure-3 to the writ application, this Court observed that at the time of the death of the pensioner and thereafter his wife, the Petitioner was staying with them along with her child and she was dependant on her parents for // 4 // her survival. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not dependant on her parents at the time of their death. In view of the categorically finding in the decree divorce that the Petitioner was separated from her matrimonial house in April, 2014, there is exist no doubt with regard to the fact that the Petitioner was staying with her parents since April, 2014. In view of the specific finding of the learned Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam, this Court is of the considered view that the letter of the Finance Dept. dated 24.09.2020 is not applicable to the facts of the Petitioner’s case. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order under Annexure-11 dated 01.02.2023 is unsustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed. Further the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.3, General Manager, OSRTC, BBSR to reconsider the mater in view of the aforesaid specific finding of this Court and pass necessary orders. In the event it is found that the petitioner was dependant on the pensioner, then the Opposite Parties shall take necessary steps for grant of pensionary benefits as is permissible to divorce daughter under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision. Further the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.3 along with a certified copy of today’s order within three weeks from today. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such a decision. 10. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ application stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Mar-2024 14:11:43