Orissa High Court
Jamuna Majhi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.84 of 2024
Jamuna Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. S.P.Pati,Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. N.K.Praharaj,
A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.01.2024
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner therefore prays that Your
Lordships would graciously be pleased to allow this
writ application with following reliefs;
(i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opp.
parties to sanction and disburse the pension and
pensionary benefits payable to the deceased husband of
the petitioner under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 by
regularizing his workcharged service and consequential
Family Pension, from the death of her husband, to the
petitioner, on due implementation of the order dated
31.01.2023 passed in WPC(OA) No.1140 of 2013 and
as per her entitlements, being similar benefits extended
to others, within a stipulated period, And
// 2 //
ii) be pleased to pass such other order/orders as
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
husband of the present petitioner who was working in the Work
Charge Establishment had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing
O.A. No.1140 of 2023 with a prayer to quash the rejection order
dated 12.06.2012 under Annexure-13 and to bring him over to the
regular establishment for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.
After abolition of the Administrative Tribunal the matter has been
transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OA) No.1140 of
2013. A coordinate bench of this Court after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties disposed of the matter vide order dated
30.01.2023 with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the
case of the husband of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in
Narusu Pradhan's case, as has been indicated in order dated
31.01.2023, within a period of four months. After disposal of the
previous writ application the husband of the petitioner passed away
on 08.10.2021. Therefore, he could not take any steps for
implementation of order dated 31.03.2023. After the death of
original petitioner namely Dambarudhar Majhi, his wife i.e. the
present petitioner filed a representation before the Opposite Party
No.1 on 24.07.2023, under Annexure-8 to the writ application, for
implementation of the order passed by this Court on 31.01.2023. He
further contended that the husband of the petitioner namely
Dambarudhar Majhi, who was the petitioner in the earlier writ
application, died on 08.10.2021. After the death of the husband of the
petitioner, namely Dambarudhar Majhi, the petitioner has approached
the opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation dated 24.07.2023
for grant of family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
// 3 //
contended that such representation under Annexure-8 is still pending
for final consideration by the Opposite Party No.1. Being aggrieved
by the inaction of Opposite Party No.1 in considering the
representation of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present writ application.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that the earlier writ application was disposed of on
31.01.2023 with certain direction to the opposite parties. However,
the petitioner namely Dambarudhar Majhi died prior to the final
order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on
31.01.2023. In such view of the matter, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that order dated 31.01.2023 having
been passed against a dead person is a nullity in law. So far the
representation of the wife of the present petitioner, who is the wife of
the ex-work charge employee is concerned, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that in the event such representation
is still pending, he will have no objection if a direction is given to the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same in accordance with law and
dispose of within a stipulated period of time.
6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, and on a careful examination of the factual background as
well as materials on record, this Court is of the observation that the
husband of the present petitioner, who was an ex-work charge
employee, had earlier approached this Court in the above noted writ
application and such writ application was disposed of on 31.01.2023
with certain directions. However, it is further observed that prior to
passing of order dated 31.01.2023, the petitioner was dead.
Therefore, the order dated 31.01.2023 is a nullity in the eye of law.
So far the present petitioner is concerned, she has already approached
the opposite party No.1 by filing a representation under Annexure-8
// 4 //
to the writ application. The basis of the claim of the present petitioner
is the service of her husband who was working as Work Charge
employee under the Government. The Co-ordinate Bench in the
earlier writ application, by taking into consideration the factual
background of the case of the husband of the petitioner, had come to
a conclusion that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of the
Tribunal in Narusu Pradhan's Case, which has been affirmed by
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Keeping in view
the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that any exercise at this
juncture by this Court would be a futile exercised as the matter has
already been dealt with by the coordinate bench basing on the self-
same factual background. Thus this Court has no hesitation in
retempering the order passed by the coordinate bench on 31.01.2023
to the extent that the case of the husband of the petitioner is covered
by the judgment in the case of Narusu Pradhan. Accordingly, this
Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage
of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the
representation of the petitioner under Annexure-8 strictly in
accordance with law and keeping in view the law laid down in the
case of Narusu Pradhan and the order passed by this Court in
Ranjita Jena V. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.39558 of
2023 disposed of on 11.12.2023. In the event the Opposite Party
No.1 comes to a conclusion that the case of the petitioner is identical
to the facts of above noted two cases referred to by this Court then,
the opposite party No.1 shall do well to extend similar benefits in
favour of the petitioner, provided there is no other legal impediment,
within a period of two months from the date of communication of
certified copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to approach the
Opposite Party No.1 within three weeks from today along with copy
of today's order as well as copies of the order in Narusu Pradhan's
// 5 //
case as well as in Ranjita Jena's case supra. The final decision so
taken be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa
