The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17544 of 2025 Amina Bibi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Nihal Rath -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. D.Lenka, A.G.A. Mr. S.K.Patra, SC for O.P. No.4 1) State Of Odisha 2) General Manager, Odisha State Transport Commission, Bbsr 3) Unit-in-charge, Osrtc, Cuttack 4) Accountant General (a And E) , Bbsr
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 02.07.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel for opposite party No.4. 3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned decision by order under Annexure-7 of opposite party No.3 and to direct the opposite parties to sanction and release family pension in his favour being the widow daughter of the deceased pension holder on the grounds stated and within a stipulated period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as the widow daughter of the pensioner is eligible for family pension Page 1 of 5. and she having made the request with an application, hence, the same could not have been rejected vide Annexure-7 as there is no statutory bar against it and at the same time, produced a copy of the order dated 4th September, 2024 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.14235 of 2024 (Lokajanani Sahany Vrs. State of Odisha & others) in support of the contention advanced. It is submitted that on a perusal of Rule 56(5) (e) of the Odisha (Pension) Rules 1992, there is no such stipulation that a widow daughter of the deceased pensioner is not entitled to receive any such benefit if she had become widow after the death of the pensioner and since a similar view has been taken by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14235 of 2024, it was not right on the part of the authority concerned to reject sanction of family pension vide Annexure-7. 5. Referring to the counter affidavit, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State would submit that the petitioner is not eligible for family pension and refers to Rule 56(8) to contend that where deceased Government servant or pensioner is leaving behind one or more child, the next eligible shall be entitled to family pension. It is further submitted that since the petitioner became a widow later to the death of her husband and not at a time, when the deceased pensioner died, so therefore, in view of Rule 56 read with Rule 80- B(i) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, she is not entitled to such pension, as it is not a case of the Government servant having survived by a widow daughter dependant on him. 6. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 referring to the written instructions (produced in Court) received in the meantime submits that the family pension to the petitioner cannot be granted and it has been rightly rejected by opposite party No.3 since because Page 2 of 5. she had become a widow after the death of the Government servant and was not a dependant on her father. It is further submitted that the order of this Court in Lokajanani Sahany (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is a decision pursuant to the order of the learned A.G., Odisha, whereas, in the case at hand, plea for family pension stands rejected by the Government. 7. Both learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Patra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 submit that the request for family pension by the petitioner has been rightly rejected vide Annexure-7 as she was not a dependant and had not become a widow at the time of death of the pensioner. 8. For a proper appreciation, the relevant provision, such as, Rule 56(5) (e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 is reproduced herein below: the case "in of widowed/divorced/disabled widowed/disabled divorced daughters even after attaining the age of twenty five years till their re- marriage or death whichever is earlier subject to the condition that in case of divorced daughter/disabled divorced daughter, the family pension for life from the date of death of her husband and there is no other eligible unmarried daughter beyond the age of twenty five years and disabled son/disabled unmarried daughter to receive the family pension. The benefit of family pension for life shall be admissible to the widowed/divorced daughter only after cessation of the claim of disabled widowed/disabled divorced daughter. The other conditions governing grant of family pension the unmarried daughters as specified in clause (d) shall also be applicable in the case of widowed/disabled divorced daughters for grant of family pension in their favour." to Page 3 of 5. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a widow at the time of death of the deceased pensioner, who died on 13th February, 2014, whereas, her husband expired on 20th April, 2023 almost after nine years, hence, therefore, the objection is that she is not entitled to family pension being not a widow and dependant of the pensioner father. A reference has been made to Rule 80-2(B)(iii) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 by Mr. Patra, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 contends that a family pensioner is to be survived by either unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter at the time of his death to be entitled to receive family pension. However, having regard to Rule 56 5(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, the Court is of the view that there is no such stipulation therein that a widow daughter of the deceased employee could not be entitled to avail benefit, if she had become a widow after the death of the deceased pensioner. Of course, Rule 80(2) B (iii) of the Rules requires that the family pensioner shall have to be a dependent and it includes a widow daughter but in absence of any such bar or stipulation in Rule 56(5)(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, the Court is inclined to hold a similar view as expressed by Co-ordinate Bench in Lokajanani Sahany (supra). The conclusion is that even though the death of the deceased pensioner has taken place much earlier and thereafter, the petitioner became a widow but being a dependant and having no such statutory bar in OCS (Pension) Rules and as a similar conclusion is reached at by this Court in the case Lokajanani Sahany, the petitioner is eligible to receive the family pension. Hence, it is ordered. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the considered view that the impugned rejection order dated 08.02.2024 Page 4 of 5. under Annexure-14 is unsustainable in law and moreover the grievance of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered in terms of the latest amendment to the rules. Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 again along with a copy of today’s order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the dispute in terms of Rules 56(e) of the O.C.S. Pension Rules, 1992 and dispose of the grievance of the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is further directed that in the event it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits as per the rules and if there are no other legal impediment, necessary follow ups be taken to sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. Any decision be taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated the petitioner from time to time. With the aforesaid observations Annexure-14 is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Jul-2025 19:53:41