Orissa High Court
Saudamini Satpathy vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4588 of 2025
Saudamini Satpathy ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Niranjan Lenka
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. Sasmita Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
17.02.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition,
issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus
or any other writ/writs as deem fit and proper
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause
as to why they shall not be directed to sanction
and release the pay family pension in her favour
including the arrear family pension since
11.06.2013 and the death-Cum-Post retiral
benefits of her deceased husband namely
Ganeswar Satpathy with accrued interest
thereon.
In the event of the opposite parties fail to
show-cause or show insufficient cause said rule
be made absolute.
And further be pleased to pass any
order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and
proper."
4. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner
with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction and
release the family pension as is due and admissible along with any
arrear family pension since 11.06.2013 as well as the death-cum-post
retiral benefits which is payable to the deceased-husband of the
present Petitioner, namely one Ganeswar Satpathy, who died in
harness on 10.06.2013, along with interest on the outstanding
amount.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the husband of the Petitioner was initially engaged on 18.07.1988 as
a Contingent Khalasi. Thereafter, he joined on duty w.e.f.
31.07.1988. He further submitted that while the Petitioner was
working as such, his service was regularized w.e.f. 31.07.2010.
While working in the regular establishment as a regular employee,
the husband of the Petitioner died in harness on 10.06.2013 leaving
behind the present Petitioner and his legal heir. He further submitted
that after the death of the deceased-government employee, the
Petitioner has been running to competent authority to get the death-
cum-post retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits as is due
and admissible to the deceased-government employee. He further
contended that due to inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner
has been devastated and that the whole family of the Petitioner is
suffering due to financial crunch. Being aggrieved by the inaction by
the Opposite Parties in not finalizing the claim of the present
Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further submitted that in the case of similarly placed employee, who
have earlier approached the Tribunal by filing of O.A. No.78(C) of
1998, which was disposed of on 19.09.2000 with a direction to the
Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner in that
case. However, such order was not implemented, as a result of which
another O.A. bearing O.A. No.777(C) of 2005 was filed. The
subsequent O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to
implement the order passed in the earlier O.A. The order passed in
the aforesaid O.A. applications were challenged by the State-
Opposite parties by filing W.P.(C) No.13852 of 2005. A Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2018 allowed the writ
petition with the following observation:-
"In our considered opinion, the petitioner has
uninterruptedly served from 1975 to 2004.
Thereafter, he is entitled for pension. The case of
the petitioner shall be considered and he will be
paid pension pursuant to the decision of the
Tribunal in the earlier Original Application, O.A.
No.78(C) of 1998 disposed of on 19.09.2000,
which has not been challenged by the State. The
necessary calculation and fixation of pension shall
be done within a period of three months from
today and payment all retiral dues shall be made
within four months hence, i.e., on or before 31 st
March, 2019. If the payment as directed above is
not made, the petitioner shall be entitled for
interest from the date of his entitlement, i.e., the
date of his retirement. While parting with the
order, we make it clear that if the retiral dues of
the petitioner is not paid within the time as
stipulated above, the interest which is directed to
be paid, shall be paid from the
employee(s)/officer(s)/authority concerned, who
would be responsible for such delay in calculation
and payment of retiral dues of the petitioner."
Referring to the observation made by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in the above noted writ petition, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the present Petitioner stands in a similar
footing with the above named Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13852 of
2005. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner
keeping in view the direction given by the Tribunal as well as this
Court in the earlier round of litigation at the instance of another
similar placed employee. He further submitted that the order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court was also assailed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.7121 of 2020. He further
contended that the said SLP has been dismissed vide order dated
09.09.2021. After dismissal of the SLP, the order passed by the
Tribunal as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, has
attained finality. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that since the husband of the present Petitioner
stands in a similar footing with the Petitioner in the above noted writ
petition, the Petitioner be treated in the same manner and she should
also be extended with all the benefits as has been given to the
Petitioner in the above noted writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties on the other
hand contended that she has no instructions in the matter. However,
she further contended that the Petitioner has not approached the
Opposite Parties before approaching this Court. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the event this
Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by
filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along
with all supporting documents, including the judgments referred to
hereinabove within a period of two weeks from today, she will have
no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.3
to consider the same in accordance with law.
8. Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner,
the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a
direction to the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of
the Petitioner keeping in view the order passed in the above noted
writ petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order. Further, it is made
clear that the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by
passing a speaking and reasoned order. Any final decision so taken
be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 19-Feb-2025 09:28:06 Page 5 of 5.
