High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15859 of 2024 Mamata Barik Pe Petitioner Associates Mr. Sibaprasad Swain, Advocate & Ass …. -Versus- State of Odisha & a & others …. Opposite Mr. N.K. Prahara site Parties raj, AGA Mr. S.K. Patra, SC for O.P O.P.No.4 CORA MR. J RAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 03. 1. ORDER 19.09.2024 Heard M Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petition ioner, Mr. Praharaj, learned
Legal Reasoning
tted that the order of this Court in Lokajanani ani Sahany (supra) as relied lied upon by learned counsel for the petitio itioner is a decision pursuant ant to the order of the learned A.G., Odisha, w whereas, in the case at ha hand, plea for family pension stands rejected cted by the Government. 6. Both, M Mr. Praharaj, learned AGA and Mr. Patra, ra, learned counsel for oppo pposite party No. 4 submit that the request fo or family pension by the p e petitioner has been rightly rejected vide Ann Annexure-7 as she was not a t a dependant and had not become a widow dow at the time of death of of the pensioner. 7. For a pr proper appreciation, the relevant provision, such as, Rule 56(5) (e) o e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 is rep reproduced herein below: case abled th of widowed/divorced/disable the “in after d/disabled divorced daughters even aft widowed/d ir re- g the age of twenty five years till their r attaining t o the e or death whichever is earlier subject to th marriage o abled n that in case of divorced daughter/disable condition the d daughter, the family pension for life from th divorced d other death of her husband and there is no oth date of de Page 3 of 5 Pa for life shall be enty unmarried daughter beyond the age of twen ghter rs and disabled son/disabled unmarried daught amily ived the family pension. The benefit of fami the th f the d/divorced daughter only after cessation of th ghter. disabled widowed/disabled divorced daughte nsion er conditions governing grant of family pensio e (d) unmarried daughters as specified in clause ( abled o be applicable in the case of widowed/disable their d daughters for grant of family pension in the admissible eligible unm five years a to received pension widowed/d claim of di The other to the unm shall also b divorced d favour.” to 8. Admitted ittedly, the petitioner was not a widow at the the time of death of the dec deceased pensioner, who died on 13th Februar uary, 2014, whereas, her hus husband expired on 20th April, 2023 almost af t after nine years, hence, the therefore, the objection is that she is not ent entitled to family pension b being not a widow and dependant of the pe pensioner father. A referen rence has been made to Rule 80-2(B)(iii) of t of the OCS (Pension) Rules, es, 1992 by Mr. Patra, learned counsel for o r opposite party No.4 cont ontends that a family pensioner is to be surv urvived by either unmarried ied or widowed or divorced daughter at the the time of his death to be e e entitled to receive family pension. However ver, having regard to Rule 5 e 56 5(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, the Co Court is of the view that th t there is no such stipulation therein that a t a widow daughter of the he deceased employee could not be entitled ed to avail benefit, if she ha had become a widow after the death of the d e deceased pensioner. Of co course, Rule 80(2) B (iii) of the Rules requires res that the family pensioner er shall have to be a dependent and it inc includes a widow daughter ter but in absence of any such bar or stipul pulation in Rule 56(5)(e) of of the OCS (Pension) Rules, the Court is inc inclined to Page 4 of 5 Pa hold a similar vie view as expressed by Co-ordinate Bench in Lok Lokajanani Sahany (supra). T ). The conclusion is that even though the deat eath of the deceased pension sioner has taken place much earlier and therea reafter, the petitioner becam ame a widow but being a dependant and ha having no such statutory ba bar in OCS (Pension) Rules and as a similar co conclusion is reached at by by this Court in the case Lokajanani Saha ahany, the petitioner is elig eligible to receive the family pension. Hen ence, it is ordered. 9. In the r e result, the writ petition stands disposed of of with a direction to opp opposite party No.3 to sanction family pen pension in favour of the pe petitioner concluding the exercise as soon as as possible preferably within thin a period of six weeks from the date of rece receipt of a copy of this orde rder. As a necessary corollary, in view of the the reasons stated hereinabo above, the impugned decision by order der under Annexure-7 is her hereby set aside. 10. A certifie tified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge ik) kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 20-Sep-2024 19:33:26 Page 5 of 5 Pa
Arguments
ned AGA appearing for the State and Mr. Mr. Patra, learned counsel f el for opposite party No.4. 2. Instant w nt writ petition is filed by the petitioner challen llenging the impugned decisio cision by order under Annexure-7 of opposi osite party No.3 and to di direct the opposite parties to sanction and and release family pension i n in his favour being the widow daughter ter of the deceased pensio sion holder on the grounds stated and w within a stipulated period iod. 3. Mr. Swa Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner subm ubmits that the petitioner as as the widow daughter of the pensioner is elig eligible for Page 1 of 5 Pa family pension on and she having made the request w with an application, henc ence, the same could not have been reject jected vide Annexure-7 as th s there is no statutory bar against it and at th t the same time, produced a d a copy of the order dated 4th September, 20 , 2024 of a Co-ordinate Ben ench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14235 5 of 2024 (Lokajanani Saha ahany Vrs. State of Odisha & others) in suppor port of the contention advan vanced. It is submitted that on a perusal of Ru Rule 56(5) (e) of the Odisha isha (Pension) Rules 1992, there is no such stip stipulation that a widow da daughter of the deceased pensioner is not en entitled to receive any such ch benefit if she had become a widow after th the death of the pensioner ner and since a similar view has been taken ken by this Court in W.P.(C) C) No. 14235 of 2024, it was not right on the the part of the authority co concerned to reject sanction of family pensi ension vide Annexure-7. 4. Referring ring to the counter affidavit, Mr. Praharaj, aj, learned AGA for the State tate would submit that the petitioner is not elig eligible for family pension a n and refers to Rule 56(8) to contend that that where deceased Govern ernment servant or pensioner is leaving behind ind one or more child, the n next eligible shall be entitled to family pensi ension. It is further submitted tted that since the petitioner became a widow ow later to the death of her her husband and not at a time, when the d deceased pensioner died, s so therefore, in view of Rule 56 read with R th Rule 80- B(i) of the OCS CS (Pension) Rules, 1992, she is not entitled led to such pension, as it is t is not a case of the Government servant ant having survived by a wid widow daughter dependant on him. Page 2 of 5 Pa 5. Mr. Patr atra, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 r .4 referring to the written n instructions (produced in Court) received ved in the meantime submit mits that the family pension to the petitioner ner cannot be granted and i d it has been rightly rejected by opposite par party No.3 since because sh she had become a widow after the death ath of the Government serv servant and was not a dependant on her fath father. It is further submitted