The High Court · 2013
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15778 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Samsara Khatun …. Petitioner -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R.C. Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 3) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 13.11.2025 & Date of Judgment: 13.11.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. G. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. // 2 // 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of family pension vide the impugned communication dtd.07.03.2024 so issued under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No. 3. Vide the said communication claim of the Petitioner was so rejected on the ground that Petitioner since has become a widow on 24.03.2019 and not during the life time of her parents, who expired on 31.08.2011 and 14.09.2012 respectively, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. 4. It is contended that on retirement of the father of the Petitioner on 01.02.1996, he was sanctioned with pension by the authorities of Paradip Port Trust. On his death on 31.08.2011, Petitioner’s mother was extended with the benefit of family pension and she continued with the benefit till she expired on 14.09.2012. 4.1. Subsequently, Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 50 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 made her application to get the benefit of family pension on 16.11.2020 under Annexure-2. Rule 50 of the said Rules reads as follows:- “(i) The family pension is payable to the unmarried / widowed /divorced daughters until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // (sub rule 6(iii) of Rule 54) (ii) The family pension is payable to the unmarried / widowed /divorced daughters above the age of 25, after all unmarried children have attained the 25 years of age or started earning their livelihood whichever is earlier. If the deceased government servant/pensioner has the widowed/divorced/unmarried daughter will be eligible to receive family pension only after the turn of disabled child. disabled survived child, any by (DoP&PW OM 1/13/09-P& PW date 11th September 2013) (iii) Divorced daughter is eligible for family pension where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent Court during the lifetime of the employee / pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death, provided the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.” 4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner made the application to get the benefit on 16.11.2020, but the same while was kept pending, but on the other hand Petitioner was asked to file the succession certificate. The same was also complied by the Petitioner, after obtaining the same and its submission vide Annexure-4 series. However, on the ground that Petitioner has become a widow on 24.03.2019, and the same being after the life time of her parents, her claim was rejected. 4.3. It is contended that Petitioner’s claim was so rejected, in terms of the provisions contained under CCS (Pension) Rules 2021. Page 3 of 8 // 4 // Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner made the claim when the provisions contained under 1972 Rules was in force and the deceased employee also died during subsistence of the 1972 Rules, claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected taking recourse to the provisions contained under CCS (Pension) Rules 2021. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner since has been rejected taking recourse to the amended provisions, which came into force in the year 2021, on the face of the application made by the Petitioner on 16.11.2020, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit. 4.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022). Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 8 of the said Judgment has held as follows:- “In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules as per his original application made in July, 2010 and if he is otherwise found eligible to appoint him on the post of Junior Clerk. Page 4 of 8 // 5 // The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of his appointment only. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 5. Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3. It is contended that Petitioner’s father while working in the establishment of Paradip Port Authority, he retired in the year 1996. After his death, his wife was extended with the benefit of family pension. After the death of the wife of the deceased employee, Petitioner made the application in the year 2020 and while submitting the legal heir certificate along with the application, since it was found that the deceased employee had a son, which was never disclosed by the deceased employee, doubt crept into in the mind of the Department and Petitioner accordingly was directed to produce the succession certificate. 5.1. Petitioner also produced the succession certificate after obtaining the same from the competent court, wherein Petitioner was shown as Page 5 of 8 // 6 // the only successor of the deceased employee. However, on the face of submission of such succession certificate under Annexure-4, Petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that she has not become a widow during the life time of her parents as provided under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Rule 50(9)(h)(j)(iii) of the 2021 Rules reads as follows:- “(iii) the unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter was dependent on her parent or parents when he or she or they were alive;” 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the provisions contained under the amended 2021 Rules, Petitioner was not a dependent by the time the parents died and she became a widow only on 24.03.2019, Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-5. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner’s father while working in the Paradip Port, he retired in the year 1996. On his retirement he was sanctioned with his pension and on his death on 31.08.2011, his wife was allowed with family pension and she got the benefit till she died on 14.09.2012. Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 6.1. Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of family pension after she became a widow on 24.03.2019 in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 50 of the 1972 Rules. As found, there is no bar under Rule 50 of the 1972 Rules that a widow will not get the benefit, if she became as such after the death of the deceased employee. Such a provision was incorporated in the Rule which was brought into effect in the year 2021. 6.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethi as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that since by the time Petitioner made the application, her claim was covered under Rule 50 of the 1972 Rules, claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected placing reliance on the provisions contained under the 2021 Rules. 6.3. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned rejection so passed under Annexure-1 as well as Annexure-5. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision as directed and consider the claim of the Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under the 1972 Rules within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such consideration if it is found that Petitioner is otherwise Page 7 of 8 // 8 // eligible to get the benefit as prayed for, consequential follow up action be taken with extension of the entitlement both arrear and current within a period of two (2) months.
Decision
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 13th November, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 10:30:27 Page 8 of 8