Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Pradipta Kumar Sahoo And Others on 3 March, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1177 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
-Versus-
Pradipta Kumar Sahoo and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA
For Respondents : Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 3rd March, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate
appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, impugned is order
dated 5th September, 2023 made by the learned single Judge. He relies
on our judgment dated 20th February, 2025 in WA no.2917 of 2023
(State of Odisha and others v. Ganga Rani Behera) to submit, the
appeal be allowed accordingly.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents,
who are legal representatives of the deceased employee. He draws
attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 in impugned order to submit, State had
conceded and, therefore, Ganga Rani Behera (supra) is not applicable.
3. Paragraphs 5 and 6 from impugned order dated 5 th September,
2023 is reproduced below.
"5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A 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 and order dated 18.05.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.12721/2020.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties
and in view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash
the order dt.11.12.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No.2
under Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court
directs Opp. party No.2 to take consequential action for
sanction of family pension in favour of the Petitioners as
original writ-petitioners expired in the meantime 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."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Mr. Mohanty's contention is correct inasmuch as State had
conceded that it would consider claim of respondents in light of
decision, inter alia, in the case of Subarna Dibya v. State of Orissa)
reported in 2005(I) OLR 168. However State is also correct in
contending the appeal is covered by our judgment in Ganga Rani
Behera (supra). Reproduced below is paragraph 6 from the judgment.
"6. We have perused order dated 1st February, 2016
impugned in the writ petition. The authority did not follow
the procedure given in para-19 of Subarna Dibya (supra),
to reject the claim for family pension. Since appellant is
relying on Subarna Dibya (supra) it is required and
obliged to follow the procedure given in above extracted
and reproduced passage from paragraph-19. Clear view,
we see, was that the rules did not permit but the authority
is required to consider as per the reproduced above
passage in paragraph-19. As appellant (State) is relying
on Subarna Dibya (supra) it is sufficient for us to set aside
impugned in the writ petition order dated 1st February,
2016 and restore the claim, for consideration in line with
above reproduced passage in paragraph-19 of Subarna
Dibya (supra). Impugned judgment is modified to above
extent. The decision on the restored claim is to be made
within four months of communication, as informed to
respondent, who Mr. Udgata says, is above 80 years of
age."
5. In Ganga Rani Behera (supra) rejection of claim of the legal
representatives was set aside. The claim was restored for decision to be
made on holding that State was obliged to follow the procedure given in
paragraph-19 of Subarna Dibya (supra). In this case the rejection order
stood set aside by the writ petition with direction for State to sanction.
In the circumstances State is to consider, as conceded by it and reflected
in impugned order, as per direction in Ganga Rani Behera (supra).
6. Impugned order is modified as above. The appeal is thus
disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Sks
Designation: Personal Assistant
