The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32046 of 2021 Mitra Mohanty … Petitioner Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC (O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 4) Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel (O.P. No.3) CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 25.06.2025 Order No. 10. 1. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner & Mr. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.3 besides Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. Instant writ petition 2. the petitioner challenging the impugned decision vide order dated 7th July, filed by is 2021as at Annexure-11 of opposite party No.1, whereby, family pension was denied on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such denial of family pension in favour of the petitioner, a divorced daughter is on the premise that she does not satisfy Rule 80(B)(iii) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, hence, it was Page 1 of 5 followed by Annexure-11. It is further submitted that the divorcee daughter is dependent on the deceased pensioner and though she was divorced in 2010, in view of Section 56(5)(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, she is entitled to family pension in absence of any bar or stipulation against it. It is submitted that this Court allowed family pension to a widow daughter in W.P.(C) No.15859 of 2024 (Mamata Barik Vrs. State of Odisha & others) vide order dated 19th September, 2024 and to a divorced daughter in W.P.(C) No.22898 of 2024 (Swapna Rani Mohanty Vrs. Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Bhubaneswar & others) decided on 24th September, 2024 with reference to an earlier decision in Lokajanani Sahany Vrs. State of Odisha & others (W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024 disposed of on 4th September, 2024). The submission is that the petitioner though became a divorcee much after the death of the pensioner, she is still entitled to family pension and Rule 80(B)(iii) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 cannot stand as a bar. 4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.3. 5. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State submits that the petitioner cannot be considered as a dependent of the deceased pensioner, as she was divorced in 2010. The submission is that a daughter either a divorcee or widow is entitled to family pension subject to fulfillment of Rule 80(B)(iii) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and not otherwise. Such submission is made with reference to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.1. Page 2 of 5 6. Mr. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for opposite Party No.3 refers to counter affidavit filed through opposite party No.3 to contend that a clarification was issued as per Annexure-A/3 thereto to allow the family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter as the case may be, if she survived the pensioner and has been a dependent at the time of his death. In reply and response, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any such clarification cannot override Rule 56(5)(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 7. Gone through the rejoinder affidavits filed by the petitioner and opposite party No.1. 8. For better appreciation, the relevant provision of Rule 56(5)(e) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 is reproduced herein below. "in the case of widowed/divorced/disabled widowed/ disabled divorced daughter 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 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 to the unmarried daughters as specified in clause (d) shall also be applicable in the case of widowed/ disabled widowed/ disabled divorced daughters for grant of family pension in their favour.” Page 3 of 5 9. As per Rule 80(B)(iii) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, where the deceased pensioner is survived by unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters, who have attained the age of eighteen years, any such daughter may herself submit a claim in Form-K seeking grant of sanction of family pension. Referring to the said provision and clarification of opposite party No.3 as at Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit filed by him, family pension is opposed and hence, the contention is that rightly it has been declined vide Annexure-11 as by then and on the date of death of the pensioner, she was not a divorcee. Admittedly, divorce has taken place in 2010 much after the death of the pensioner. But, on a reading of Rule 56(5)(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, the Court is inclined to reiterate its earlier view in Mamata Barik and Swapna Rani Mohanty (supra) to conclude that there is no bar or any interdiction in allowing family pension in favour of a daughter, who is widowed or divorced and the same has been taken place after the death of the pensioner provided she is a dependent. According to the Court, what is more relevant is the daughter being widowed or divorced is a dependent or otherwise but to hold that a daughter must be divorced or widowed at the time of death of the pensioner to make herself to claim family pension would be in derogation to Rule 56(5)(e) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and hence, therefore, the conclusion of the Court is that the petitioner is entitled for the same. The Court reiterates the earlier view expressed with reference to the order in Lokajanani Sahany Page 4 of 5 (supra) and therefore, is inclined to direct grant of family pension to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, it is ordered. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a consequence, the impugned decision vide order dated 7th July, 2021 as at Annexure-11 is hereby quashed with a direction for grant of pension in favour of the petitioner as soon as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Alok (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 30-Jun-2025 11:53:45 Page 5 of 5