Orissa High Court
Bernika Chhatia & vs A. State Of Odisha & ... Opp. Parties on 2 January, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) NO.19938 of 2017
Bernika Chhatia & .... Petitioners
Others Mr. S. Mohanty, Adv
-versus-
A. State of Odisha & ... Opp. Parties
Others State Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order
02.01.2024
No
4. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the Office order
dt.17.06.2017 under Annexure-11 so passed by Opp. Party
No.4 wherein the claim of the Petitioners for sanction of
family pension in their favour was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that this
is the second journey of the Petitioners to this Court on the
self-same issue. It is contended that even though the claim
of the Petitioners 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 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 petitioners,
passed the impugned order under Annexure-11.
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
// 2 //
Bhimsen Prusty Vs. State of Orissa, 78 (1994) CLT 357, so
confirmed in the case of Subarna Dibya, the Petitioners are
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
5. Learned Counsel for the State though supported the
impugned order but fairly contended that the case of the
Petitioners 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.17.06.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under
Annexure-11. While quashing the same, this Court directs
Opp. party No.4 to take consequential action for sanction of
family pension in favour of the Petitioners as due and
// 3 //
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
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 02-Jan-2024 18:08:04
