The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7883 of 2025 Nandini Naik ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – U.C. Jena, A.S.C. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G., Odisha
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 19.03.2025 Order No. 01. 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 AG, 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: “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue Rule Nisi or any other appropriate Writs against the Opp. parties calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to sanction Final Family Page 1 of 5. Pension, Death Gratuity and Unutilised Leave Salary in favour of the petitioner with interest due to such delayed payment; And, if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute by directing the Opp. parties to sanction Final Family Pension, Death Gratuity and Unutilised Leave Salary in favour of the petitioner with interest due to such delayed payment. And/or issue any other appropriate Writ/Writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the husband of the Petitioner, namely, late Durjyodhan Naik, was initially appointed as a Village Level Worker (VLW) on 25.02.1986. While working as such under the Opposite Party No.4, the husband of the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 15.05.2019 under Annexure-3 to the writ application. He further contended that while continuing under suspension, the husband of the Petitioner was under the administrative control of the Opposite Party No.4 and he passed away in harness on 06.12.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.4 for grant of family pension. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 allowed the provisional family pension vide order No.3309 dated 01.12.2020. He further contended that in the meantime no action has been taken by the Opposite Parties to sanction the final family pension, death gratuity and unutilized leave salary as is due and admissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not sanctioning the final family pension and other Page 2 of 5. retiral dues including the gratuity and unutilized leave salary, the Petitioner submitted an application under the R.T.I. Act in the office of the Opposite Party No.2 which was duly forwarded to the office of the Opposite Party No.4. In reply to such RTI enquiry, the Petitioner has been informed vide letter dated 03.09.2024 that no Departmental Proceeding is pending against her late husband. However, a draft charge was sent to the Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dated 20.07.2019. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since no charge memo was served on late husband of the Petitioner as the draft charge was not approved by the competent authority, it can be presumed that no Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the husband of the Petitioner prior to his death. 6. Further, referring to Rule-91-A, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid provision in the Odisha Service Code provides that when a Govt. servant is under suspension and dies before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as on-duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled to had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties have failed in their duty in finalizing the claim of the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid legal provision and being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Page 3 of 5. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that on perusal of the writ application it appears that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties for grant of pensionary as well as other retiral benefits including gratuity and unutilized leave salary as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds with a further direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no objection to the same. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the nature of the dispute involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds before the Opposite Party No.2 within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. In the event it is found that there is no other legal impediment, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to finalize the claim of the Petitioner with regard to the final family pension, gratuity and unutilized leave salary and other retiral dues, if any, due and admissible to the Petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision. The decision which is likely to be taken by the Opposite Party No.2 in the process shall be Page 4 of 5. communicated to the Petitioner from time to time forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Mar-2025 12:39:57