[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manmath Nath Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10678 of 2026
Manmath Nath Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Atul Tripathy
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Sr. Adv.
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner, who happens
to be the husband of a deceased-government employee, namely
Anjali Pattnaik, has approached this Court challenging the
impugned order dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-14 to the writ
petition passed by the Controller of Accounts, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, thereby requesting the Petitioner to return the pension
papers in PPO No.120501 for cancelation of family pension that
was initially allowed in favour of the present Petitioner.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset
contended that the above named government employee died on
05.06.2025. He further submitted that till death of the government
employee she was receiving the pensionary benefits. The Petitioner,
who was also a government employee, retired from service w.e.f.
31.03.2011. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that the wife of the present Petitioner was initially
appointed as NF Instructor in Khurda District on 20.01.1986 and
then as an Asst. Teacher on 23.07.1998. The wife of the present
Petitioner continued in government service till her retirement on
22.07.2018 and after her retirement she was receiving pensionary
benefits.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present
writ petition is that after death of the wife of the present Petitioner
on 05.06.2025 the Petitioner submitted an application for grant of
family pension. Such application was initially allowed by the
Controller of Accounts, Odisha. Subsequently, by virtue of the
impugned letter dated 03.10.2025 at Annexure-12 the Sub-Treasury
Officer, Tangi raised an objection on the ground that the deceased-
government employee happens to be the second wife of the present
Petitioner. Accordingly, it was recommended that the family
pension in favour of the present Petitioner be cancelled. After order
dated 03.10.2025 the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.4
by filing a representation dated 10.10.2025 to reconsider the
decision along with the relevant documents. However, without
considering the representation of the Petitioner as well as the
documents filed along with the representation, the Opposite Party
No.4 vide order dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-14 decided to cancel
the family pension that was earlier sanctioned in favour of the
present Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
on the basis of the complaint received from the Sub-Treasury
Officer, Tangi, the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar
after due examination has passed impugned order thereby cancelling
the family pension that was earlier sanctioned in favour of the
present Petitioner. He further contended that since the deceased-
government employee was the second wife of the Petitioner, he is
not entitled to the pensionary benefits. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Parties
have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order
dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-14. In such view of the matter, the
learned counsel for the State further contended that the present writ
petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts,
further on a close scrutiny of the documents annexed to the writ
petition, and on a careful examination of the impugned orders at
Annexure-12 & 14, this Court found that the Opposite Parties while
cancelling the family pension sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner
have not provided any reason for doing so. Moreover, the provision
contained in Rule-56 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 provides
grant of pensionary benefits in favour of the second wife. In the
aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that the case of
the Petitioner has not been duly considered by the Opposite Parties.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated
28.01.2026 at Annexure-14 is unsustainable in law. Hence, the same
is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the
Opposite Party No.4 to consider the issue afresh by providing
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Let the Opposite Party No.4
take a fresh decision in the matter by taking into consideration Rule-
56 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 as well as the representation
of the Petitioner dated 10.10.2025 at Annexure-13 within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of
today's order. The representation of the Petitioner shall be
considered strictly in accordance with law and shall be disposed of
by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so
taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
8. 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
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:19:58
