The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20656 of 2025 Rajalakshmi Mohapatra …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.08.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order dated 30.07.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction so issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (Electricity)-cum- Principal Chief Electrical Inspector, Odisha. The same be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Pension under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 as due to her deceased husband and thereafter sanction of Family Pension in her favour. // 2 // 5. It is contended that even though this Court directed for consideration of the claim of the deceased employee as well as for sanction of Family Pension in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6732 of 2025 vide order dated 10.03.2025 under Annexure-9, but claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 05.07.2025 under Annexure-10.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the case of Bidyadhar Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha under Annexure-8 series was also upheld when the Writ Appeal filed by the State was withdrawn vide order dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-8 series. It is accordingly contended that since similar claim has been allowed by this Court and similar claim pursuant to the order of this Court has already been implemented vide order under Annexure-11, rejection Page 2 of 5 // 3 // of the petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order under Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. On instruction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since the deceased employee/husband of the petitioner was never regularized prior to his retirement on 30.06.2009, the deceased employee is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of Pension under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992. 6.1. It is also contended that had the deceased employee would have been regularized by the time he retired on 30.06.2009, then also he would not have been covered under the provisions of OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992. It is also contended that claim of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022 was implemented because of the direction issued by this Court in the said order. 6.2. However, since the deceased employee is not similarly situated as like the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit and it has been rightly rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner’s late husband while in service in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 01.06.1981, he retired as such on 30.06.2009 prior to getting the benefit of regularization. Claim of the deceased Page 3 of 5 // 4 // employee to get the benefit of pension under the provisions of EPF Act, was also rejected by the Govt. vide letter dated 16.07.2018 under Annexure-3, on the ground that the deceased employee was never enrolled under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 7.1. Thereafter, the deceased employee died on 20.11.2023 so reflected under Annexure-4. On the death of the deceased employee, petitioner when came to know that similar benefit has been allowed by the State, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6732 of 2025. This Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 under Annexure-9, while disposing the Writ Petition, directed the Opp. Parties to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as has been done in the case of Narsu Pradhan Vs. State of Odisha in O.A. No.1189(C)
Arguments
5.1. It is contended that similar benefit as claimed by the deceased employee was allowed by the State in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022 vide order dated 26.06.2025 under Annexure-11. It is accordingly contended that since similar benefit pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022 has been allowed by the Govt. in the department of Energy vide order dated 26.06.2025 under Annexure-11, rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.2. It is also contended that similar claim allowed by
Decision
of 2006 disposed of on 11.06.2009. 7.2. But as found, such claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 under Annexure-10 on the ground that the deceased employee was never regularized prior to his retirement on 30.06.2009 and while dealing with the case of Narsu Pradhan, Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1917 of 2003 order dated 02.03.2006, clarified that such an order cannot be treated as precedent in future case. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 7.3. However, it is found that similar claim made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022 has been allowed and it has not been disputed by the Opp. Parties in the instruction provided to the Court. 7.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the fact that similar claim has been allowed by the State pursuant to the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022, it is the view of this Court that that the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. Not only that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narsu Pradhan has ever observed that the same cannot be treated as precedent in future case. 7.5. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dated 05.07.2025 so issued under Annexure-10, directs O.P. Nos.1 and 2 to extend similar benefit as has been extended in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13259 of 2022. This Court directs O.P. Nos.1 and 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Aug-2025 11:03:56 Page 5 of 5