The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.35115 of 2023 1) Laxmipriya Moharana 2) Banabasa Moharana 1) State Of Odisha 2) Tpcodl 3) Eee, Cesu, Puri ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Archana Mohanty -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - M/s. Bibhudhendra Dash,p.k.mohanty,n.c.jena CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 30.04.2024 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Biibhudhendra Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay all the retirement benefits as is due and admissible to the deceased employee since the Petitioners are related to the deceased employee as wife and son respectively pursuant to the order under Annexure-1,6 & 7. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the husband Page 1 of 6. of Petitioner No.1, late Raghunath Moharana, while was working under TPCODL i.e. Opposite Party No.2, died in harness. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Petitioners being the legal heirs are entitled to the financial as well as pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the deceased employee. She further contended that the Opposite Parties are not paying the GPF dues and leave salary and other retiral benefits as is due and admissible to late Raghunath Moharana. It is also contended that the Petitioner No.1 is suffering from cancer and for her treatment she requires huge sum of money. Since the family is in distress condition, they are unable to provide financial support for the treatment of Petitioner No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that to establish the date of death of late Rghunath Moharana the petitioner produced a certificate issued by Puri Municipality on 09.07.2010. She further contended that since the daughter of Petitioner No.1 was treated at outside the State of Odisha they have not collected the death certificate whereas the body of the deceased was cremated at Swagadwar, Puri and a certificate to that effect was issued by Puri Municipality on 01.02.2018. She further contended that she also produced the legal heir certificate issued by the competent authority under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to sanction and disburse the financial/retiral and pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to late Raghunath Moharana in favour of the Petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 on the other hand submitted that they have filed a detailed counter Affidavit. In their Counter Affidavit they have stated that late Raghjunath Moharana expired on 01.06.2010. It is further contended that after his death the Page 2 of 6. death benefit has already been disbursed in favour of the Petitioners except the death gratuity. In the Counter Affidavit, it has also been stated that since there was a dispute with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, the death gratuity has not been disbursed in favour of the Petitioners. Further, the Counter Affidavit also reveals that a request was made to submit succession certificate issued by the competent authority. Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Opp.Parties further contended that since no certificate has been produced, the case of the Petitioners for grant of death gratuity has not been considered as of now. It is also contended that earlier the Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9524 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter by directing the Petitioners to file a representation before the authorities with a further direction to the authorities to consider and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time. It is also contended that on receipt of such representation the same shall be considered pursuant to the direction of
Decision
this Court and the same has also been disposed of. While disposing of the representation of the Petitioners, the Opposite Party no.2 has requested the Petitioners to produce Civil Court order for settlement of gratuity claim. Instead of submitting Civil Court order, the Petitioners have submitted an Affidavit on 16.02.2023. On such ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the claim of the Petitioners with regard to payment of death gratuity benefit has not been considered. As such it was contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality. On such ground learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same be dismissed. 7. On the submissions of the learned counsel or the Opposite Page 3 of 6. Parties, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that one Mita Moharana claiming herself to be the daughter of late Raghunath Moharana allegedly created some disturbance on the right of the Petitioners over the death benefit and gratuity benefit. He further contended that Mita Moharana has died in the meantime. Therefore, any claim of Mita Moharana does not survive any further. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that she has produced a certificate issued by the Puri Municipality certifying that the body of Mita Moharana has been cremated at Swargadwar Puri. She further submitted that she has filed an affidavit indicating the aforesaid fact. However, the same has not been acted upon by the Opposite Parties. It is also contended that the Opposite Parties are insisting on obtaining a Civil Court order. With regard to the dispute raised by Mita Moharana, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the said dispute does not exist any more since the abovenamed Mita Moharana has died in the meantime. On such ground, leaned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there is no legal impediment in releasing the death and gratuity benefit in favour of the Petitioners, who happen to be the wife and son of late Raghunath Moharana and that the Petitioner No.1 is suffering from cancer and requires a lot of money for her treatment. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and on careful examination of the background facts of the present case, this Court observes that the only grievance of the Petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that they have not been extended the benefit of death gratuity as is due and admissible on the death of late Raghuath Moharana. It also appears that a dispute was raised by Mita Moharana, who claimed herself to be the daughter of late Raghunth Moharana. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners the above named Page 4 of 6. Mita Moharana died in the meantime. Therefore, her claim does not exist any more. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that no such document was filed by the Petitioners to prove that Mita Moharana has died in the meantime. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not taken any decision with regard to the release of death gratuity in favour of the Petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, further taking into consideration the legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Petitioners to approach Opposite Party No.2 along with all the documents in support of his contentions that the abovenamed Mita Moharna is dead. Along with such document the Petitioner shall also file an Affidavit indemnifying the Opposite Party No.2 in the event liability is fixed on Opposite Party no.2. Further, it is directed that while considering the case of the Petitioners for grant of death gratuity benefit the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri on 31.01.2013 shall not stand on the way of considering the case of the present Petitioners for grant of death gratuity benefit. Further, it is directed that, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to conclude the aforesaid exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the amount due and admissible to the Petitioners be paid to the Petitioners within six weeks along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulted period. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that the Petitioner No.2 has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. She further contended that the same has been rejected as the application has been made after the period of limitation. In such view of the matter, liberty is given to the Petitioners to approach Opposite Parties afresh by filing an application. In the event Page 5 of 6. such an application is filed the same shall be considered by taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father, within a period of two months. In the event there is delay in filing the application, the same be considered and condone the delay and the application of the Petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment be considered on merit. Any decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 11. With the aforesaid observation the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 13:53:07