Nilamani Mohanty And vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8995 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No. 16065 of 2017



            Nilamani Mohanty and                      ....               Petitioners
            others

                                                           Mr. S.B. Jena, Advocate

                                                -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others                ....         Opposite Parties

                                                                  Mr. S. Pattanaik,
                                                            Additional Government
                                                                          Advocate

                         CORAM:
                           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                    ORDER

10.08.2023

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

10.

2. Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The petitioners are the sons of late Nilamani Mohanty (original petitioner), who was the wife of late Baikuntha Nath Mohanty. The deceased (Baikuntha Nath Mohanty) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.04.1949 in Kuradhamalla School and subsequently died on 11.07.1971, while he was in service. It is stated that the original petitioner submitted representations to the authority time and again for grant of family pension and T.I., but the same was not considered. Challenging the

inaction of the authorities in this regard, she has approached this Court by filing the present writ application with the following prayer:-

"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs by quashing the office order No.7421, Dt.27.04.2017 under Annexure-5.

And further be pleased to direct the opp. Parties to disburse the family pension and T.I with effect from 11.07.1971 and continue to pay family pension.

And further be pleased to direct the opp. Parties to pay interest for delayed payment.

Or pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

6. During pendency of this writ petition said Nilamani Mohanty (original Petitioner) expired on 16.12.2017 and has been substituted by the present petitioners.

7. Mr. S.B. Jena submits that the matter is covered by the ratio decided by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhimasen Prusty and others vs. State of Orissa, reported in 1994(I) OLR 439 and the case of Subarna Dibya and Others vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2005 (I) CLR (SC) 41, decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Relying upon said judgments, Mr. Jena would contend that the settled position of law is that irrespective of the date of retirement an employee is entitled to pension, if he has completed ten years of service.

Mr. Jena has in particular referred to paragraphs-19 and 20 of the judgment in Subarna Dibya (supra).

8. Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that the petitioners' case is covered by the ratio of Subarna Dibya (supra) but opposes the same on the ground that the original petitioner had not approached the authorities in time and had only done so after pronouncement of judgment in Subarna Dibya (supra).

9. This Court, at the outset rejects the above contention of Shri Pattanaik on the ground that the State being a model employer cannot seek to defeat the legitimate right of citizen on technical grounds. Moreover, grant of pension/family pension to an eligible employee/dependents should be viewed as a legitimate and justified action of the government in a welfare State like ours.

10. Coming to merits of the case, since the basic issue as to whether a teacher retiring prior to coming into force of the 1981 Rules is eligible to receive pension or not has already been dealt with in detail and decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court, nothing further remains to be decided in the present writ petition, which is therefore, disposed of by directing the concerned authorities to act in terms of the ratio decided in Subarna Dibya (supra) and to grant the necessary benefits to the petitioners within three months.

11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication (Sashikanta Mishra) Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack B.C. Tudu Date: 23-Aug-2023 18:51:49 Judge