Orissa High Court
Bilasini Rout vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 5 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.12073 of 2025
Bilasini Rout ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Raju Kumar Satpathy
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director Of Treasures And Represented By Adv. -
Inspection,bbsr Mr.U.C.Jena, ASC
3) Accountant General,bbsr
Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing
Counsel for
A.G.Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
05.05.2025
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 Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite
Parties and Mr.S.K.Patra, learned Standing Counsel for
A.G.Odisha. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the
following prayer:
"The Petitioner above named, therefore, most
humbly prays, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to admit this case, issue notice to
Opp.Parties, pass necessary orders calling for the
entire case record and after perusal and hearing,
under the above premises may further be pleased to
quash the impugned order at Annexure-1 and direct
the Opp.Parties to pay her the Family Pension with
effect from 01.08.2016 in accordance with law.
And any other direction/order as would be
deemed just and proper."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the father of the Petitioner namely, Premakanta Rout, Ex-Audit
Superintendent in the Office of the Directorate of Treasures
and Inspection, Odisha retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.01.1991. Upon his retirement the
above noted Government employee who was getting
pensionary benefit vide PPO No.71889 on 01.02.1991. On
09.03.2011 the above named Premakanta Rout passed away
leaving behind his wife and his daughter. After the death of the
Government employee. After the death of the Government
employee, his wife namely, Susmita Rout was getting family
pension.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
the wife of the Government employee and the mother of the
present Petitioner namely, Susmita Rout died on 20.11.2012.
He further contended that the present Petitioner married to one
Shankarsan Pradhan on 14.05.2023. The said Shankarsan
Pradhan died premature on 01.08.2016. At this juncture,
learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the
Petitioner being widow daughter of the Government employee
applied for grant of family pension on 03.07.2018 before the
Opposite Party 2. Such application was forwarded by Opposite
Party no.2 to Opposite Party No.3 on 14.12.2018On
28.09.2021 the opposite Parties initially rejected the claim of
the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner became a
widow after the death of the pensioner. Thereafter the
Petitioner submitted a representation before Opposite Party
no.2 on 27.08.2022 which was duly forwarded to Opposite
Party no.3 on 29.11.2022. At this stage, learned counsel for
the Petitioner submitted that although the representation of the
Petitioner is pending before Opposite Party no.3, however no
action has been taken on it as of now. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that the case of the Petitioner is
squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Mamata
Barik v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.15859 of
2024 vide order dated 19.09.2024 and in the case of
Lokajanani Sahany vs. State of Odisha and others in
W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024 vide order dated 04.09.2024. He
further referring to Rule 56(5)(e) of OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner
is entitled to family pension as is due and admissible to the
widow daughter of the Pensioner.
6. On perusal of the initial rejection order, it is observed that
the Opposite Parties have not taken into consideration the law
laid down in the aforesaid two judgments. Moreover, it appears
that since the earlier rejection order is not a speaking and
reasoned order, the Petitioner has again filed a representation
before the Opposite Parties, which is still pending.
7. Mr.S.K.Patra, learned counsel appearing for A.G.Odisha
on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner became
the widow after the death of the pensioner, her application was
initially rejected. He further submitted that in the event any
representation is pending before the Opposite Parties and no
final decision has been taken on the same, as alleged in the
Writ Petition, he will have no objection if this Court directs the
Opposite Parties to consider and dispose of the representation
of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.
8. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned
counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of
the documents annexed to the Writ Petition and keeping in
view the grievance of the Petitioner involved in the Writ
Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ
Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite
Party No.3 to consider the pending representation of the
Petitioner dated 27.08.2022 under Annexure-7 within a period
of two months in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid
Mamata Barik's case (supra) and Lokajanani Sahany's case
(supra) and to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner
by passing a speaking order within the aforesaid time. The
final decision so take be communicated to the Petitioner within
10 days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order in course of the
day.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 06-May-2025 18:28:34
