The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.36008 of 2021 Bhumika Patel ..... Sangram Keshari Behera -versus- ..... Petitioner Mr. B.P. Das, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: Order No.4 ORDER 22.01.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3.Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to sanction and release G.P.F., and family pension in favour of the Petitioner with effect from 28.02.1997 and pay the same within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper, And/or may pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice. Page 1 of 7.
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in W.P(C ) No.26393 of 2017 as well as order passed by the Director, Elementary Education- Opp. Page 6 of 7. Party No.2 on 23.06.2018 under Annexure-6, the ground taken by Opp. Party No.5 in Para 12 of the counter affidavit is not acceptable to this Court. 7.1. Considering the nature of order passed under Annexure- 6 and the submission of the pension papers on two occasions by Opp. Party No.5 vide Annexure-7 and 8 series along with the Original Service Book, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opp. Party No.5 to re-submit the pension papers of the Petitioner by complying the objection so indicated in Annexure-9 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such re-submission of the pension papers, Opp. Party No.3 is directed to sanction the family pension as due to the Petitioner along with arrear family pension within a period of 2(two) months thereafter.
Arguments
4.It is contended that Petitioner’s late husband entered into service as a Primary School Teacher on 07.02.1967. It is contended that while so continuing, late husband of the Petitioner was allowed to take retirement on the ground of invalidation w.e.f 07.08.1996. But subsequently, the deceased employee died on 27.02.1997. 4.1. It is contended that since after taking retirement on the ground of invalidation, late husband of the Petitioner died on 27.02.1997, he could not raise his claim to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. But after such death of the deceased employee, Petitioner approached the authorities time and again for sanction of family pension w.e.f 28.02.1997 with all arrear dues. As the same was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26393 of 2017. This Court vide order dt.06.03.2018 under Annexure-5 permitted the Petitioner to make an appropriate application before Opp. Party No.2 for consideration of her grievance. 4.2. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed on 06.03.2018, Petitioner made a detailed representation on 06.07.2018 along with all other relevant documents before Opp. Party No.2 for sanction of family pension in her favour. 4.3. It is contended that Opp. Party No.2 on consideration of the Petitioner’s claim in terms of earlier order passed by this Court on 06.03.2018 passed an order under Annedxure-6 holding therein that Opp. Party No.5 being the pension Page 2 of 7. sanctioning authority is competent to consider the claim of the Petitioner in accordance with law. It is contended that basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.26393 of 2017 and the order passed by Opp.Party No.2 on 10.09.2018 under Annexure-6, Opp. Party No.5 submitted the final pension paper and other documents along with the Original Service Book of the deceased employee vide letter dt.18.12.2018 under Annexure-7 series. 4.4. It is contended that when pension paper so submitted vide Annexure-7 series on 18.12.2018 were returned back by the Office of Controller of Accounts-Opp. Party No.3, the said pension papers were again re-submitted by Opp. Party No.5 vide letter dt.17.06.2019 under Annexure-8 series. 4.5. It is contended that Opp. Party No.3 when once again vide letter dt.09.12.2019 returned back the pension papers for compliance of certain objections and for its re-submission and no further action was taken on the claim of the Petitioner, Petitioner is before this Court inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 4.6. It is contended that since in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.26393 of 2017, Opp. Party No.2 held Opp. Party No.5 as the competent authority to sanction the family pension in favour of the Petitioner and in terms of the said order, pension papers were duly submitted by Opp. Party No.5 before Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-7 series as well as under Annexure-8 series, but Page 3 of 7. inaction on the part of Opp. Party No.5 in not complying the requirement after receipt of Annexure-9 is causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No.5 to re- submit the pension papers after complying the objection so reflected in Annexure-9 and further direction be issued to Opp. Party No.3 to sanction the family pension as due and admissible to the Petitioner w.e.f 28.02.1997. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.5 contended that Service Book enclosed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-1 as well as Annexure-8 series are forged documents and Petitioner’s late husband had only worked as a Primary School Teacher for the period from 07.02.1967 to 11.04.1968 i.e only for 14 months and accordingly in view of the provisions contained under the relevant Rules, Petitioner’s late husband was not eligible to get any pension. Accordingly, Petitioner is also not entitled to get family pension. 5.1. Stand taken in para 12 of the counter affidavit reads as follows : 12. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the Triple Benefit Scheme Rule, 1966 (TBS Rules, 1966) for the Non-Government Primary School Teachers was introduced w.e.f 01.04.1964 prior to that there was no pension scheme for the Non-Government Primary Teachers. As per the TBS Rule the Non-Government Page 4 of 7. taken VRS retired prior Primary School to teachers who 31.03.1982 are governed under the said scheme. It is needless to mention here that even otherwise if the instead of Petitioner would have resignation, he could not have also sanctioned with the pension, because there was no provision for granting voluntary retirement to intended teachers who rendered less than 30 years of service as per TBS Rules, 1966. In the instant case, the husband of the Petitioner has only served for a period from 07.02.1967 to 11.04.1968 i.e. only 14 months for which he is not eligible for any pensionary benefits. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner’s late husband has only served for the period from 07.04.1967 to 11.04.1968, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get family pension as the original employee was not eligible to get the benefit of pension and accordingly after receipt of Annexure-9, no further action was taken. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit. 6.1. It is contended that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(c ) No.29393 of 2017 and further order passed by Opp. Party NO.2 on 23.08.2018 under Annexure-6, Opp. Party No.5 submitted the pension papers along with the original service book of the deceased employee. 6.2. It is never the case of the Opp. Parties that Petitioner’s late husband was not in service beyond 11.04.1968. It is also Page 5 of 7. contended that as found from the Service Book enclosed to the Writ Petition , Petitioner’s late husband was not only allowed to take retirement on the ground of invalidation w.e.f 07.08.1996, but he was sanctioned with revised salary as well as increment as due till 01.08.1996. It is accordingly contended that in view of the entries available in the Service Book under Annexure-8, save and except the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get benefit of family pension as due to her. 6.3. Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court passed the following order in 12.12.2024. This matter is taken up through hybrid 1. mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Considering the rival stand taken in the counter affidavit,. This Court directs learned Addl. Govt. Advocate to produce the original service book of the deceased employee on the next date. 4. As requested, list this matter in the week commencing 13th January, 2025. 5. Office is directed to indicate the name of Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in the cause list by deleting the name of Mr. J. Sahu 6.4. However, on the face of such order, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate failed to produce the Original Service Book of the deceased employee before this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made and the earlier order
Decision
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 17:28:29 Page 7 of 7.