The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.28367 of 2024 Chari @ Charulata Moharana ..... Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy(1), Sr. Adv. -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D. Lenka, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 23.07.2025 Order No. 02. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned senior counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “On the facts and in the circumstances stated above, your petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to; i) direct the opp.parties to forthwith sanction and release family pension in favour of the petitioner with payment of arrears of pension of her late husband Late Sudhakar Moharana from June, 2010 with interest and costs by forthwith complying the Page 1 of 5. ii) judgment dt.25.10.2017 of the Tribunal passed in OA No.129(C)/2004; in direct the opp.parties to calculate and release all retiral benefits of Late Sudhakar Moharana and family pension in favour of the petitioner by computing the entire period of his service in the Work Charged establishment as qualifying service terms of Finance Dept. Resolution dt.22.01.1965, 15.05.1997 and Finance Dept. Office Memorandum dt.06.03.1990, 05.03.1999 and 12.12.1997 as well as, as per the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Uday Prasad Thakur vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371, along with interest at Bank’s rate; iii) pay pass such other order (s) as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;” 4. Mr. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the husband of the present Petitioner initially entered into the service as a Choukidar as per order dated 23.02.1966 of Executive Engineer, S & M Division, Hirakud and accordingly he joined in service on 25.02.1966. While working as such, the husband of the Petitioner was transferred and posted in Stores Sub-Division, Samal on 15.09.1978. While working as such, the husband of the Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, has retired from service on 30.06.2001. 5. Since the husband of the Petitioner was not getting pension and pensionary benefits, she was compelled to approach the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.129(C) of 2004. Page 2 of 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid O.A., the husband of the Petitioner died on 15.10.2010. After the death of the government employee his legal heirs including the present Petitioner obtained a legal heir certificate from the concerned Tahasildar and got themselves substituted in place of the deceased-government employee. 6. While the matter stood thus, O.A. No.129(C) of 2004 was taken up for hearing by the learned Administrative Tribunal and finally vide order dated 25.10.2017 the O.A. was allowed with a direction to the State-Opposite Parties to sanction pension and other retiral dues in favour of the husband of the Petitioner as is due and admissible by regularizing his service for one day. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that the same shall be done by creating a supernumerary post, if necessary, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of order dated 25.10.2017. 7. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that although the O.A. was disposed of with the direction on 25.10.2017, till date the order of the Tribunal has not been implemented. He further submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality in the meantime as the same has not been challenged further at the instance of the State-Opposite Parties. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that despite the order dated 25.10.2017, the Petitioner has not been disbursed with the legitimate dues as is due and admissible to the former government employee and the predecessor in interest of the present Petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner is aged about 80 years and due to financial constraint she has been suffering a lot. The inaction of the Page 3 of 5. Opposite Parties has caused a serious prejudice not only to the government employee, but also to the whole family, including the present Petitioner. In the aforesaid background, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is the settled position of law that the pension and pensionary benefits of an employee are no more a bounty and the payment of such amount does not depend on the mercy of the employer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held the same to be a constitutional right of the retired government employee and the same is protected under article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay the amount by implementing the order of the learned Tribunal dated 25.10.2017 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, on a close scrutiny of the pleadings as well as documents annexed thereto, it appears that the Petitioner had earlier approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.129(C) of 2004 which was disposed of on 25.10.2017. Further, order dated 25.10.2017 reveals that in Para-9, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. and directed the Opposite Parties to sanction the pension and other retiral dues in favour of the applicant Petitioner as is due and admissible to him, by regularizing the service of the Late husband of the Petitioner for a day and, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post and the entire exercise was directed to be conducted within three months. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the event the order dated 25.10.2017 has attained finality, then he will have no objection Page 4 of 5. if this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal within a stipulated period of time. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, further keeping in view the judgment of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal dated 25.10.2017 passed in O.A. No.129(C) of 2004, this Court allows the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 25.10.2017 within a period of four weeks and accordingly the Petitioner be paid the dues as per the direction of the Tribunal along with interest @ 12% from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal. In the event the Opposite Parties fail to clear the dues within the aforesaid stipulated period of time, then they shall pay the dues along with interest @ 18% till such payment is made to the Petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Jul-2025 19:08:01