The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6692 of 2024 Parbati Dash @ Annapurna Dash …. Petitioner Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 27.03.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. On oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, he is permitted to add “Tahasildar, Balianta, At/P.O.-Balianta, Dist.- Khurda” as Opposite Party No.5 to the writ petition in Court today. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; // 2 // I. Why the direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Parties shall grant/sanction and release/the family pension in favour of the petitioner after making through enquiry about the status of the petitioner as Parbati Das @ Annapurna Dash same and one person wife of Late Dhaneswar Dash. II. Why direction shall not be given to the Opp. Parties specifically Opp. Party No.3 & 4 to grant/release family pension of late husband of the petitioner namely Dhaneswar Dash, in view of the Affidavit shown as Parbai Dash and Annapurna Dash is one same person who is wife of Late Dhaneswar Dash. III. Why direction shall not be issued to the Opp. Parties, specifically, Opp. Parties No.3 & 4 what steps have the grievance petition received by them more than period of 5 months. taken on If the Opp. Parties fail to show any cause or show any insufficient cause, the aforesaid Rule be made absolute by issuing an appropriate writ/writ, pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” And 5. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although she is the legally married wife of Late Dhaneswar Dash (Ex-Government Employee), the Opposite Parties are not extending the benefit of family pension to the Petitioner. He further contended that in the pension book, the Ex-Government employee, namely, Dhaneswar Dash, has named Smt. Parbati Dash, wife of Dhaneswar Dash as the nominee to receive the pensionary benefits. He further contended that the aforesaid Dhaneswar Dash died on 17.04.2023 leaving behind the present Petitioner and three other legal heirs. The legal heir certificate has been issued by the competent authority therein reflecting the name of the Petitioner as Annapurna Dash. She also referred to the Aadhaar Card issued by the // 3 // Government of India wherein the name of the Petitioner has been shown as Annapurnna Dash. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Parbati Dash and Annapurnna Dash is self-same person. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality in not paying the family pension to the present Petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that the authorities are bound by the nomination made by the deceased Government employee while he was in service. The service book further reveals that the name of the wife of the deceased Government employee is Parbati Dash. Since the Petitioner’s name is Annapurnna Dash and her name does not find place in the service book, the authorities are not in a position to extend the benefit of family pension to the present Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioner has to first reconcile the discrepancy of her name and thereafter her claim shall be considered by the Opposite Parties as per the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that in fact there is discrepancy in the name of the Petitioner. The service book under Annexure-1 to the writ petition reveals that the name of the wife of the deceased Government employee is Parbati Dash. However, the Petitioner has obtained a legal heir certificate where her name has been reflected as Annapurnna Dash, widow of Late Dhaneswar Dash. Similarly, in Aadhaar Card under Annexure-3, her name has been // 4 // reflected as Annapurnna Dash. 8. In view of the aforesaid discrepancy in the name of the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.5 by filing a detailed representation along with supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.5 shall conduct an inquiry on such representation and submit a report before the Opposite Party No.2. On the basis of such report, the Opposite Party No.2 shall forward the pension papers, if required, after carrying out necessary correction to the Opposite Party No.3 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such report from the Opposite Party No.5. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is the same person as has been nominated in the service book, then the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible be sanctioned and disbursed in her favour by the Opposite Parties within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision. Any decision taken by the Opposite Parties be intimated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 29-Mar-2024 19:18:23