[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pramod Chandra Sasany @ vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 11 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 36113 of 2025
Pramod Chandra Sasany @ ..... Petitioner
Prmod Chandra Sasany Mr. P.K. Swain, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P.
Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp.
Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party
No. 4.
3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is
therefore most humbly prayed that your Lordship would
be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue
notices to the Opp. Parties and on hearing, direct the Opp.
Party No.3 and 4 to sanction and release the family
pension in favour of the petitioner as due and admissible
from the date this amount is payable to the petitioner,
And pass any such other order/orders as your
Lordship's would deem fit and proper.
And for such act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner being
the disabled son of the deceased employee, when made an
application to get the benefit of family pension in terms of the
provisions contained under Rule 56(5) of the OCS (Pension) Rules,
1992 and such pension papers were submitted before Opp. Party No.
4, vide letter dtd.10.08.2023, the same was returned back vide letter
dtd.04.09.2023 as per the instruction provided by the learned counsel
appearing for Opp. Party No. 4.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since
Petitioner is the disabled son of the deceased employee, in terms of
the provisions contained under Rule 56(5) of the Rules, he is eligible
to get the benefit of family pension after the death of the deceased
employee as well as wife of the deceased employee, who was in
receipt of the family pension. It is also contended that after return of
the pension papers vide letter dtd.04.09.2023, no action has been
taken as yet to resubmit the same for the purpose of sanction of
family pension in favour of the Petitioner. It is also contended that
there is no bar under the aforesaid Rule that a disabled son is not
eligible to get the benefit.
4.2. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision
of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 32877 of 2022 disposed of on
03.01.2023. This Court in Para 10 & 11 of the said order has held as
follows:-
"10. On careful consideration of the Certificate, this
Court is of the considered view that the nature of disability
as has been indicated by the Medical Officer is sufficient
to presume that the petitioner may not be able to earn his
livelihood on his own. In such view of the matter, this
Court is also of the considered view that the
recommendation of the Law Department to the Opposite
Party No.2 under Annexure-12 vide letter dated
02.12.2021 is perfectly justified and is in consonance with
the provisions of the rule, therefore, Opposite Party No.2
should have acted on the recommendation made by the
Administrative Department under Annexure-12. The
contentions raised by Mr. S.K. Patra on behalf of the
Opposite Party No.2 that the Medical Certificate has been
issued after death of the pensioner is an embargo created
by some executive order. No such provision is to be found
in the Rules, creating any such embargo for grant of
family pension, otherwise also question of getting family
pension would arise only after the death of the pensioner
and not before submitting the prescribed Form under the
Rules. Therefore, such a ground taken by the Opposite
Party No.2 to reject the claim of the petitioner appears to
be vague, baseless and legally unsustainable.
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts and law, this
Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order
dated 03.12.2021, accordingly the same is hereby
quashed. Further the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to
process the claim of the petitioner further and in the event,
it is found that the application of the petitioner is
otherwise in proper form supported by required
documents then the same can be processed and sanctioned
and the family pension amount be disbursed in favour of
the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of two months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. The authorities are directed
to act upon production of certified copy of this order."
5. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
contended that in the meantime after complying the objection,
pension paper of the Petitioner has been forwarded to the office of
Opp. Party No. 4 vide letter dtd.20.01.2026.
5.1. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel accordingly contended that
since pension paper has already been submitted before Opp. Party
No. 4, appropriate direction can be passed.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ
petition, directs Opp. Party No. 4 to take a decision on the Petitioner's
claim to get the benefit of family pension so forwarded vide letter
dtd.20.01.2026, taking into account the pre-amended provisions
contained under Rule 56(5) of the Rules and the decision as cited
(supra). Such a decision be taken within a period of two (2) months
from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
