The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16732 of 2021 Laharika Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Padhi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 31.07.2025 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 07.08.2020 so passed by the O.P. No.2 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of Pension as well as Family Pension was rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s husband while in service, initially submitted an application to take Voluntary Retirement, which was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2003 under Annexure- 2. After such rejection of his claim to take Voluntary Retirement from service, late husband of the petitioner // 2 // filed an application on 27.06.2003 under Annexure-3 with a prayer to accept his resignation from his services w.e.f. 31.07.2003. 4.1. It is contended that on the face of the application submitted under Annexure-3, the resignation was only accepted vide order dated 14.07.2015 under Annexure- 5. After such acceptance of the resignation vide order dated 14.07.2015, the deceased employee died on 05.10.2015. It is contended that since the resignation submitted by the petitioner’s late husband on 27.06.2003 was only accepted on 14.07.2015, which is after the date of his attaining the superannuation on 31.03.2014, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-47 of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992, deceased employee not only became eligible to get all pensionary benefits, but also the present petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of Family Pension. 4.2. Accordingly, when the present petitioner raised a claim to get the same and the tribunal directed for such consideration in O.A. No.1583 of 2017 and further order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2020, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2020 under Annexure-1. 4.3. It is contended that since the resignation submitted on 27.06.2003was only accepted vide order dated 14.07.2015 under Annexure-5 w.e.f. 01.10.2004 and that too after the date of superannuation on Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 31.03.2014, the same is a nullity in the eye of law and such an order could not have been passed after more than 12 years of its submission. It is accordingly contended that in view of the provision contained under Rule-47 of the Rules, the deceased employee not only became eligible to get his retiral benefits, but also the present petitioner is eligible to get family pension. It is accordingly contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order dtd.07.08.2020 under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that initially an application was submitted by the deceased employee to allow him to take Voluntary Retirement, which was rejected by the Govt. vide order dated 18.06.2003 under Annexure-2. Subsequently, the deceased employee made an application on 27.06.2003 with a prayer to accept his resignation w.e.f. 31.07.2003 under Annexure-3. When the said application was not accepted, the deceased employee approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.395(C) of 2015. The tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2015 while disposing the O.A. passed the following order:- “Keeping in view the above guidelines of the government, Respondent/authorities are directed to pass appropriate order on the resignation of the applicant within a period of two months treating the resignation deemed to have been accepted on completion of three months and communicate the order Page 3 of 6 // 4 // to the applicant soon thereafter and financial benefits as due and admissible to him be extended within a period of one month thereafter.” 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, the resignation submitted by the deceased employee was accepted w.e.f. 01.10.2004 vide office order dated 14.07.2015 under Annexure-5. It is contended that since order under Annexure-5 was passed taking into account the prayer made by the deceased employee in O.A. No.385(C) of 2015, the deceased employee in view of the provision contained under Rule-34 of the Rules, is not eligible and entitled to get any pensionary benefits. Rule-34 of the Rules reads as follows:- “34. Forfeiture of service on resignation-(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the State Government where service qualifies. [Provided that the employees, who have joined pensionable establishment under the State Government Service and accordingly, governed under the said rules, on their subsequent appointment in any other post in pensionable establishment under the State Government on or after 01.01.2005 by dint of technical resignation/ proper permission from the authority shall continue to be governed under the provisions of this rule. Provided that the employees covered under the Contributed Provident Fund etc. scheme prior to 01.01.2005, shall, however, not to be entitled to this benefit w.e.f. dtd. 01.01.2005] (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under Sub-rule (2) due to the two appointments being at different stations, Page 4 of 6 // 5 // not exceeding the joining time as permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him. (4) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest where the officer wishes to withdraw it and that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve in reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation. (5) Request for withdrawal of resignation shall not be accepted by the appointing authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up another appointment in or under a private commercial company or in a Corporation wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government.” 5.2. It is further contended that in view of the provision contained under Rule-34 of the Rules, the deceased employee forfeits his qualifying service and not entitled to get any pensionary benefits. Petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee is also not entitled to get the family pension. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed, which requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that deceased employee while in service made an application to take Voluntary Retirement, the same was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2003 under Annexure- 2. Thereafter, the deceased employee submitted an application on 28.06.2003 under Annexure-3 with a Page 5 of 6 // 6 // prayer to accept his resignation w.e.f. 31.07.2003. Such request made by the deceased employee under Annexure-3 was accepted vide order dated 14.07.2015 under Annexure-5 in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 15.04.2015 in O.A. No.385(C) of 2015. 6.1. Since the order under Annexure-5, accepting the resignation of the deceased employee w.e.f. 01.10.2004 was issued basing on the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.385(C) of 2015 and on the request made by the deceased employee even after his attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2014, it is the view of this Court that the deceased employee in view of the provision contained under Rule-34 of the Rules forfeits his past service and not entitled to get pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the present petitioner being the wife is also not entitled to get the benefit of family pension. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dated 07.08.2020 so issued by O.P. No.2 under Annexure-1 and is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 18:53:47 Page 6 of 6