The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9791 of 2025 Debabrata Benupani ..... Petitioner -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director, Soil Conservation And Watersheds Development, Odisha 3) Project Director, Watersheds, Kalahandi 4) Principal Accountant General (a And E) , Odisha Represented By Adv. - Dhananjaya Mund ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A. Mr. S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for O.P No.4 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 09.04.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and Mr. S.K.Patra, learned standing counsel for the Opposite Party No.4. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the opposite parties, call for the records and appropriate after writ(s)/directions(s) by declaring the Opp.Parties in not granting family pension in favour of the Page 1 of 4. issue the action of hearing parties the petitioner as illegal and quash the letter vide Memo No.1874, dated 08.01.2025 under Annexure-8 issued by the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar and further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to extend the family pension in favour of the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. And further pass any order/orders or direction/directions as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the present petitioner, who was working as a Junior Soil Conservation Assistant, has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2011. Thereafter, w.e.f. 01.01.2012, the father of the petitioner was receiving pension and pensionary benefits. On 08.10.2014, the petitioner was born out of the second marriage of his father. On 24.05.2016, the father of the petitioner died. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the first wife of the pensioner died issueless on 10.10.2019. Furthermore, no pensionary benefit was extended in favour of the first wife during her life time. The petitioner, being a minor son of the deceased pensioner, filed an application before the competent authority for grant pension papers in his favour. Such pension papers were forwarded to the Office of the Accountant General by the Administrative Department on 05.11.2024 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the office of the Accountant General, Opposite Party No.4 rejected the application and the pension papers were returned to the Administrative Department on 08.01.2025 vide letter dated 08.01.2025 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. 5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment in the case of Nirmali Samal vs. State of Orissa & others reported in 2015 SCC Online Odisha 223. He Page 2 of 4. further contended that the learned Single Judge Bench of this Court, while adjudicating the issue involved therein, by referring to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has categorically held that children of the Govt. employee born through void and voidable marriages are legal heirs of the deceased Government servant. Accordingly, the said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to produce his legal heirs certificate before the Competent Authority and such competent authority was directed to examine the same and in the event it was found that the petitioner is a heir to the family pension, such family pension shall be allowed in favour of the petitioner. In the abovenoted judgment of this Court, while disposing of the writ application the learned coordinate bench has specifically observed that children born to the petitioner are also entitled to get other benefits like gratuity, provident fund and unutilised leave salary. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rejection of claim of the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2025 under Annexure-8 is unsustainable in law. 6. Mr. S.K.Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Principal Accountant General, on the other hand contended that the abovenoted judgment was not produced before the authority while considering the claim of the present petitioner. in such view of the matter, Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 further contended in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to reconsider the issue keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Nirmali Samal’s Case (supra) and in accordance with law under the O.C.S. Pension rules within a stipulated period of time, he will no objection to the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Page 3 of 4. on a careful examination of the factual background facts of the present writ application, further taking note of the documents annexed to the writ application as well as the judgments in Niramli Samal’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by setting aside the rejection order dated 08.01.2025 and further remanding the matter back to the Opposite Party No.4 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the judgment in the case of Nirmali samal’s Case (supra) within a period of three moths from the date of communication of certified copy of today’s order. It is further directed that the administrative department, on production of such certified copy, shall do well to forward the application along with all relevant documents as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 4 of 4. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-Apr-2025 11:32:35