Smt. Urbasi Nath vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3814 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      W.A. No.282 of 2021
            Smt. Urbasi Nath                           ....            Appellant
                                           Mr. S.C. Nathsharma, Advocate
                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha and others              ....      Respondents
                              Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, A.G.A. for the State

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                           ORDER

19.04.2023 Order No.

02. 1. The dispute between the two wives of late Gobinda Nath for receiving the family pension forms the subject matter of the present appeal.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Appellant states that as per his information, the Appellant has died during the pendency of the present writ appeal which was filed on 26th March 2021 against the impugned order dated 28th January 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.(C) No.38798 of 2020. He accordingly prays that the Appellant should be substituted by her sole legal representative i.e., her daughter Tusar kanti Nath, who is a major and is married.

3. The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to Opposite Party-State to "stop payment of family pension to Opposite Party No.5 and to grant family pension in favour of the Petitioner and release the arrears as well as the current pension to her." The basis of the above claim was a judgment and decree dated 3rd April 2004

passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Jajpur in Title Suit No.76 of 2002 where inter alia it was held that Respondent No.5 was not entitled to the family pension payable on account of the death of Sri Gobinda Nath.

4. Admittedly, Respondent No.5 has filed an appeal being RFA No.98 of 2004 against the said judgment of the civil court which is stated to be pending in this Court.

5. In the above background, the learned Single Judge has in the impugned order observed that the question as to entitlement of the family pension would depend on the outcome of the above appeal and further that if the said appeal is decided against the present Appellant, she can seek other appropriate remedies available to her in accordance with law.

6. Given the above facts, the Court is unable to find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Clearly, the entitlement of the family pension would depend on the outcome of the above appeal pending in this Court.

7. Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ appeal and it is dismissed as such.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge S.K. Guin