The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8734 of 2024 Satyanarayan Sahu ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Krishna Chandra Sahu -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – S.Das, AGA Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for AG, Odisha 1) State Of Odisha 2) Principal Secy, Finance Dept., Bbsr 3) Director, Agriculture And Food Production 4) Chief Dist. Agriculture Officer, Sambalpur 5) Dist. Agriculture Officer, Kuchinda 6) Principal Accountant General(a And E) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 15.04.2024 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 Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite
Legal Reasoning
Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for A.G., Odisha. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed in the Writ Petition. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer : “It is, therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to pass following prayer:- (i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition, (ii) The Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to allow this writ Page 1 of 6. petition by quashing the impugned letter dtd. 06.11.2023 under Annexure-11 and letter dtd. 06.08.2022 under Annexure-12 keeping in view of the judgment dtd. 19.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2879/2023 under Annexure-13 by further directing the Opp. parties for sanction & disbursement of withheld arrear disable family pension in favour of the petitioner as due & admissible within a time bound period for the interest of justice. (iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other order(s), direction(s) as deems fit & proper for the bonafide interest of justice.” 4. The factual background of the Petitioner’s case leading to filing of the present writ application in short, is that, the father of the Petitioner, namely, one Giridhari Sahu, was initially engaged as a peon under the Govt. on 13.04.1964. While working as such, the father of the Petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.10.1992. After retirement of the father of the Petitioner, he was getting pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to him. While the matter stood thus, the father of the Petitioner died on 16.05.2008, leaving behind his widow wife and the present Petitioner. After the death of the deceased govt. employee, the mother of the present Petitioner was getting family pension. Finally, the widow of the deceased govt. employee and the mother of the Petitioner also died leaving behind the present petitioner and two daughters on 25.11.2008. After the death of the mother of the present Petitioner who is a disabled person, applied for disabled pension by filing a proper application along with a legal heir certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined by the statutory medical authorities and he was issued with a disability certificate on 24.01.2013. 5. The Medical certificate which was issued by the competent medical authorities was disputed by the authorities. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again asked to appear before the district medical board for examination and the district medical board was asked to submit a Page 2 of 6. certificate. Finally, the CDM & PHO, Sambalpur vide his letter No.1690 dtd.13.03.2020 submitted a report. The said report under Annexure-8 reveals that the Petitioner is having permanently physical impairment disability with 50 per cent of low vision. It has also been stated that such disability is permanently in nature which is not likely to be improved and that such disability prevents him to earn his livelihood forever. Thereafter, the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Sambalpur forwarded the pension papers along with the medical certificate issued by the CDM & PHO, Sambalpur to the office of Principal Accountant General for grant of disability pension to the Petitioner vide letter dated 04.05.2020 under Annexure-9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the basis of such recommendation the pension payment order was issued by the office of the Principal A.G. vide PPO No.625752 and accordingly the Petitioner was granted disability pension w.e.f. 20.10.2021 at the rate of Rs.3500/-. Further it appears that such disability pension was being given to the petitioner till 01.01.2021 and the arrear in respect of above period was paid to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the disability pension of the Petitioner has been abruptly stopped by the authorities. Order dated 06.11.2023 under Annexure-11 by virtue of which the disability pension has been stopped reveals that the office of the Principal A.G. by referring to Finance Dept. letter dated 06.08.2022 has stopped the disability pension to the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite parties in stopping the payment of disability pension to the present Petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for A.G., Odisha referring to the letter dated 06.11.2023 under Annexure-11 submitted that the on the basis of the letter of Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022 the disability pension has been stopped. He further contended that by virtue Page 3 of 6. of the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2020 the Finance Dept. has been imposed a condition whereunder if the beneficiary who claims pensionary benefit in disability category must have such disability while the pensioner was alive. On such ground, the disability pension which was being initially paid to the Petitioner, has been stopped. He further contended that the disability certificate was issued by the competent medical authority much after the death of the pensioner. Therefore, the office of the principal A.G. has not committed any illegality in stopping the disability pension of the petitioner vide their order dated 06.11.2023 under Annexure-11 to the writ application. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the other contended that initially the pension papers were forwarded to office of the principal A.G., however, in terms of the letter issued by the Finance Dept. dated 06.08.2022, the office of the Principal A.G. has taken a decision and the disability pension payable to the Petitioner has been stopped. In such view of the matter, learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned decision has been taken by the office of the Principal A.G., therefore, the State-Opposite Party has no role in the present writ application. In such view of the matter, he contended that the present writ application be dismissed against the state-Opposite Party. 8. In reply to the contention raised by Mr. Patra, learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik (W.P.(C) No.2879 of 2023
Decision
disposed of on 19.05.2023). By referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Court while deciding a case of similar nature considered the finance dept. letter dated 06.08.2022 and further contended that by referring to the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, this Court in the case of the above noted Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik has held that the clarification dated 06.08.2022 is unsustainable in law and the same was quashed. Further, Page 4 of 6. the Opposite Parties were directed to resubmit the pension papers of the Petitioner in that case who was also claiming pensionary benefits on the ground of disability. It was also contended that the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case squarely applies to the facts of the present Petitioner’s case. The order passed by this Court in above named Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case has already been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3097 of 2023. 9. Considering the submission made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the case of the Petitioner is almost identical to the case of the above named Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik case (supra). Since the clarification of the Finance Dept. has already quashed in the earlier writ application, there is no necessity to consider validity of the same again. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Principal A.G. dated 06.11.2023 under Annexure-11 is unsustainable in law, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite party No.6 to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the order passed in Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik’s case (supra) within six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that since a PPO has already been issued in favour of the Petitioner with the concurrence of the Finance Dept., no further concurrence is necessary. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.6 shall do well to calculate the balance benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid PPO under Annexure-10 to the writ application and the same shall be sanctioned and disbursed in Page 5 of 6. favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of taking a such a decision. The final decision be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such a decision. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Apr-2024 14:59:18