The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 30440 of 2024 Rajeswari Pradhan ..... State f Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
Decision
ORDER 25.02.2025 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 06.01.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the District Treasury Officer, Boudh, Odisha in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why :- i) Why the letter dated 7.10.2022 issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-9 shall not be quashed in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India rendered in between State of Punjab Vrs Rafiq Masih reported in AIR 2015 SC P-696 as well as Thomas Daniel Vrs State of Kerala and to release family pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2014; Page 1 of 4. ii) And after hearing the parties be pleased to quash/ set aside the letter dated 7.10.2022 issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-9 and direct the Opp. Party No.2 to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner as per the letter dated 6.10.2020 issued by opp. Party No. 4; iii) The Opp. party No.2 be directed to release all the arrears of Family pension of the petitioner from 1.1.2014 to till date with 9% interest thereon till payment is released; And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 5. It is contended that Petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee who died while in receipt of pension on 30.12.2013. It is contended that on the death of the deceased employee/pensioner, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of family pension w.e.f.01.01.2014. 5.1. However, since after death of the original pensioner on 30.12.2013, he used to receive the pension as due and admissible till 31.12.2015 resulting therein excess payment to the tune of Rs.2,51,068/-, on the face of the proposal submitted before the Controller of Accounts/Opp. Party No. 3 vide letter dtd.06.10.2020 under Annexure-5, Petitioner is yet to get the benefit of family pension. 5.2. It is contended that Petitioner does not dispute that after death of the original pensioner on 30.12.2013, the deceased pensioner used to receive the pension till 31.12.2015 and Petitioner has no role with regard to such payment of pension as due to the deceased Pensioner. It is however not disputed that after death of the original pensioner, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of Page 2 of 4. family pension w.e.f.01.01.2014. It is accordingly contended that by adjusting the excess payment to the tune of Rs.2,51,068/-, Petitioner be sanctioned with family pension w.e.f.01.01.2014. 5.3. It is also contended that Petitioner has no objection, if the excess payment to the tune of Rs.2,51,068/- is recovered from the family pension entitlement of the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 to do the needful by sanctioning family pension in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f.01.01.2014 and disburse the entire entitlement along with current family pension by recovering a sum of Rs.2,51,068/- , which has been paid in excess as reflected in the impugned letter dtd.07.10.2022 under Annexure-9. 6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing counsel on the other hand contended that since the deceased employee while in receipt of pension died on 30.12.2013, pension as due to the deceased Pensioner should not have been received by the present Petitioner without disclosing the death till 31.12.2015. It is contended that due to such wrong payment of the original Pension in favour of the deceased pensioner till 31.12.2015, a sum of Rs.2,51,068/- has been paid in excess than the entitlement of the present Petitioner towards family pension for the period from 01.01.2014 till 31.12.2015. It is also contended that since the bank is not cooperating in providing the undrawn pension calculation sheet with regard to such excess payment of Rs.2,51,068/-, Opp. Party No. 3 is not in a position to sanction the family pension in favour of the Petitioner. 6.1. It is also contended that Petitioner on the face of the letter issued by the Bank is not depositing the excess payment received Page 3 of 4. by her for the tune of Rs.2,51,068/- and accordingly her claim to get family pension is not being processed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner’s late husband was in receipt of pension vide PPO No. 34472 of 07/2002. While in receipt of pension the deceased pensioner died on 30.12.2013. Because of such death of the original pensioner, Petitioner became entitled to get the family pension w.e.f.01.01.2014. But it is not disputed that original pension as due to the deceased pensioner was released till 31.12.2015. 7.1. Since it is not disputed that till 31.12.2015 pension as due to the deceased pensioner was drawn by the present Petitioner and accordingly excess payment to the tune of Rs.2,51,068/- was received by her, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to sanction the family pension in favour of the Petitioner as due and admissible w.e.f.01.01.2014. On such sanction of family pension w.e.f.01.01.2014, the arrear entitlement from 01.01.2014 to till date be calculated and released by recovering a sum of Rs.2,51,068/-. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 to complete the entire exercise as directed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Signature Not Verified Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:31:48 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 4 of 4.