Orissa High Court
Kalpalata Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.12721 of 2020
Kalpalata Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Panda, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.05.2023
Order No
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal,
learned A.G.A.
3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Officer order
dt.13.06.2019 under Annexure-6 so passed by Opp.
Party No.2 wherein the claim of the Petitioner for
sanction of family pension in her favour was
rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that this is the second journey of the Petitioner to
this Court on the self-same issue. It is contended
that even though the claim of the Petitioner is
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the
case of Subarna Dibya Vs. State of Orissa and
Others, so disposed of by this Court along with a
// 2 //
batch vide judgment dt.10.05.2004, but Opp. Party
No.2 without proper appreciation of the said
judgment and the applicability of the same to the
claim of the petitioner, passed the impugned order
under Annexure-6.
4.1. It is also contended that since in normal
course, the Petitioner's husband would have retired
on 31.08.1989 i.e. after the cut-off date fixed by
this Court in the case of Bhimsen Prusty Vs. State
of Orissa, 78 (1994) CLT 357, so confirmed in the
case of Subarna Dibya, the Petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of family pension.
Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned
order since has been passed by Opp. Party No.2
without following the decision in the case of
Subarna Dibya in its proper perspective, the said
order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.2. This Court for verification of the claim of
Subarna Dibya also called for the records passed
in OJC No.3891 of 2000. From the pleadings
available in the said matter, it is found that in the
case of Subarna Divya, the concerned employee had
died on 15.04.1956 and taking into the account the
fact that in normal course, he would have retired in
the year 1988, this Court allowed the prayer. It is
also contended in the Bar that the order passed by
this Court in the case of Subarna Divya has been
upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP (C )
Nos.14265-14326/2005 dt.19.02.2015
// 3 //
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned A.G.A though
supported the impugned order but fairly contended
that the case of the Petitioner be considered in the
light of the decision in the case of Subarna Dibya.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for
the Parties and in view of such position, this Court
is inclined to quash the order dt.13.06.2019 so
passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-6.
While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp.
party No.3 to take consequential action for sanction
of family pension in favour of the Petitioner as due
and admissible from the date of entitlement and
release the same along with arrear family pension
within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-May-2023 18:28:29
