The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10863 of 2023 Basanti Nayak …. Petitioner Mr.Umakanta Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.T.Patnaik, A.S.C. Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G. Odisha CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.04.2023 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 and Mr.S.K.Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Principal Accountant General. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “ It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Application, issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause to show cause as to why the writ application would not be allowed and if they fail to show cause, or show false or insufficient cause may make the Rule absolute by setting aside the cancellation order of pension application passed by Opp.Party No.4 bearing letter No.SAI-6/7/406-407 dated 25.04.2022 and letter No.SAI-6/C Dy-60460422/7/2022-23 given in Annexure-9 & 12 respectively; And further directing the Opp.Party No.4 to sanction // 2 // family pension to the Petitioner with effect from the date of death of widow-mother, i.e. 15.12.2017. And may pass any other order/orders, direction/directions which would meet the ends of justice.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner namely, late Mahendra Pradhan, who was a Government employee retired from service with effect from 01.01.1980. Thereafter, he was getting the pension. on 05.08.1994. The said Mahendra Pradhan died leaving behind his wife and the present Petitioner. After the death of the Government employee, his wife namely, Saraswati Pradhan was getting family pension with effect from 06.05.1994. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner was a minor at the time of death of her father and she was dependent on her father. In the year 2006, the Petitioner got married to one Anil Kumar Nayak. He further contended that unfortunately the husband of the present Petitioner namely, Anil Kumar Nayak died on 08.04.2009. After the death of the husband of the present Petitioner, she came to the house of her widow mother. Thereafter, both the widow mother and daughter were staying together from 2009 to 2017. On 15.12.2017 the mother of the present Petitioner died leaving behind the Petitioner. The Petitioner, who is a widow has no source of income and she was surviving on the family pension which her mother was getting after the death of her father. After the death of the mother, the Petitioner applied for family pension to the Collector, Cuttack on 19.09.2018. The Collector, Cuttack after considering the background and the financial hardship faced by the present Petitioner, recommended the case of the Petitioner for family pension to the A.G.Odisha on 12.12.2018. On 10.10.2019 the A.G.Odisha asked the Treasury Officer, Cuttack to return the original Pension Payment Order and // 3 // accordingly on 04.03.2020 the Treasury Officer returned the original Pension Payment Order. Vide order dated 25.04.2022 the A.G.Odisha rejected the family pension application of the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 22.08.2022 the Petitioner filed a representation to reconsider the decision by the A.G.Odisha and to grant family pension to the Petitioner. The said application for reconsideration was forwarded by the Deputy Collector, Cuttack vide his letter dated 11.10.2022 with a request to A.G. Odisha to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for getting family pension. Finally, vide order dated 06.12.2022 the Office of the A.G.Odisha rejected the application of the Petitioner for grant of family pension. Finally, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse the family pension to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the Collector, Cuttack recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of family pension. However, the Office of the A.G. Odisha rejected the same by referring to the Rule and holding that the Petitioner is not eligible to get family pension. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the decision has been taken by the Office of the A.G. Odisha, i.e., Opposite Party No.4. 6. Mr.S.K.Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the A.G.Odisha on the other hand contended that the application for grant of family pension to the Petitioner was duly received by the Office of the A.G.Odisha and the same was considered by the Office of the Opposite Party No.4. He further submitted that keeping in view the clarification issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha dated 24.09.2020 to the effect that the daughter // 4 // (divorce/widow) is eligible to get family pension if she has been dependent on the pensioner at the time of his/her death. Accordingly, it was submitted by Mr.Patra, learned Standing Counsel that the Petitioner was not dependent on her father at the time of his death. In the said context, he also drew the attention of this Court to the rejection letter dated 20.04.2022 under Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition and submitted that the present Petitioner was not dependent on her father at the time of his death and hence she is not eligible to get family pension as per the clarification issued by the Government of Odisha in Finance Department. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration on the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties as well as for the Principal Accountant General, Odisha and further taking into consideration the background facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner, who was a minor at the time of death of her father in the year 1994, she was dependent on her father. She got married in the year 2006 and soon thereafter her husband died and she became a widow in the year 2009. Thereafter, she was living with her mother from the year 2009 till the death of her mother in the year 2017. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Petitioner was initially dependent on her father as a minor daughter and subsequently on her mother, who was a recipient of family pension, after the Petitioner became a widow and was residing with her mother since 2009 till the mother of the Petitioner died in the year 2017. The dependent case which has been clarified under the Finance Department Clarification dated 24.09.2020 shall not stand as a bar so far as the present Petitioner is concerned. Further, it is made clear that keeping in view the objective in providing the family // 5 // pension to the widow daughter, the provisions contained in OCS (Pension ) Rule 1992 and further taking into consideration the Rule contained in Rule 226 of the aforesaid Rule, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be examined by the Opposite Party No.2 and after careful examination of the background fact, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to issue necessary clarification to the Office of the A.G. Odisha for grant of family pension to the Petitioner in view of the Rule 56 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. The Petitioner is further directed to approach the opposite Party No.2 along with a certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. In the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in the manner as has been directed hereinabove and keeping in view the financial hardship faced by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall take a final decision in the matter and intimate the same to the Principal Accountant General. The Principal Accountant General on receipt of such clarification from Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today and in the event it is found that the Petitioner is eligible to get such family pension, the Office of Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to disburse the same within the aforesaid time stipulation. The authorities are directed to act upon production of certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge // 6 //