[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Santilata Samantaray vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.25925 of 2022
Santilata Samantaray .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Behera, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
Mr. A. Tripathy, Adv.
(for Corporation-Opp.
Party No.3)
Mr. S.K. Patra, Adv.
(for O.P. No.4)
COROM:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No 20.02.2026
12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dt.08.08.2022 so passed by Opp.
party No.1 under Annexure-15. Vide the said order,
claim of the Petitioner for sanction of provisional family
pension was rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that deceased-husband of the Petitioner
after his retirement, pursuant to the order passed by
this Court on 05.08.2014 in W.P.(C ) No.24757 of 2013,
was sanctioned with provisional pension for his
// 2 //
survival vide sanctioned order dt.21.07.2015 under
Annexure-5 series. The deceased employee was
sanctioned with provisional pension w.e.f 25.06.2002.
4.1. However, after his death on 16.10.2017, Petitioner
when raised the claim to get the benefit of provisional
family pension, the same was never considered.
Accordingly, Petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C ) No.21791 of 2021. This Court vide order
dt.26.04.2022 under Annexure-14, when directed for
consideration of the Petitioner's claim, the same was
rejected vide the impugned order dt.08.08.2022 under
Annexure-15 on the ground that Petitioner's deceased
husband was not having the required qualifying service
to get the benefit of pension and accordingly prayer of
the Petitioner to sanction the benefit of provisional
family pension is also not entertainable.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since the deceased employee instead of
having the required qualifying service, pursuant to the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.24757 of
2013, was sanctioned with provisional pension vide
order dt.21.07.2015 under Annexure-5 series, after his
death on 06.10.2017, Petitioner being the wife of the
deceased employee, became eligible and entitled to get
the benefit of provisional family pension. It is
accordingly contended that the ground on which
// 3 //
Petitioner's claim has been rejected is not sustainable
in the eye of law.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other
hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit
when contended that Petitioner's claim has been rightly
rejected, this Court passed the following order on
30.07.2025.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the ground of rejection of the
Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of family
pension vis-à-vis the order available under
Annexure-5-Series sanctioning provisional pension
in favour of the deceased employee, this Court on
the face of the stand taken the counter affidavit
by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 directs the
learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State
to file an affidavit indicating therein as to under
which provision of law, the benefit of provisional
pension was extended in favour of the deceased
employee vide order under Annexure-5-Series.
4. As requested by Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate for the State, list this matter in the
week commencing 18th August, 2025.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an additional
affidavit was filed by Opp. party Nos.1 & 2, enclosing
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.24757 of
2013. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that
since this Court while disposing the matter in W.P.(C )
No.24757 of 2013 vide order dt.05.08.2014, directed
for grant of provisional pension in favour of the
deceased employee as a special case, which was
// 4 //
complied with, with sanction of the same vide order
dt.21.07.2015 under Annexure-5 series, the said
benefit automatically lapsed after the death of the
employee concerned on 06.10.2017. Stand taken in
para-8 of the additional affidavit reads as follows:
That, it is humbly submitted that, in obedience to
Transport the Hon'ble Court's order the provisional
pension was Commerce sanctioned (Transport)
Department Office order No. 4601 / dated vide
21.07.2015 and the action to release the
Provisional Pension was taken strictly in
compliance to the order no.4 dtd 05.08.2014 of the
Hon'ble Court in WP(C) NO.24757 of 2013 as the
Hon'ble Court considered the case as a special case
due to distressed condition of petitioner's family
and directed the opposite party no.1 to take steps
for grant of provisional pension.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since benefit of
provisional pension was sanctioned in favour of the
deceased employee as a special case, pursuant to the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.24757 of
2013, the said benefit cannot be continued with, by
sanctioning provisional pension in favour of the
Petitioner and the same has been rightly rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this
Court finds that Petitioner's late husband when was
not sanctioned with pension and other pensionary
benefits, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C )
No.24757 of 2013. This Court vide order
dt.05.08.2014, when directed Opp. party No.1 to grant
// 5 //
provisional pension as a special case, the said order
was complied by sanctioning provisional pension in
favour of the deceased employee vide order
dt.21.07.2015 under Annexure-5 series.
6.1. However, after the death of the deceased employee
on 06.10.2017, benefit of provisional family pension
was not sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner, although
there is no dispute that the Petitioner is the wife of the
deceased employee. It is the view of this Court that
since pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C ) No.24757 of 2013, the deceased employee was
sanctioned with provisional pension as a special case,
after his death on 06.10.2017, Petitioner being the wife
of the deceased-employee, also became eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of provisional family pension.
6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of
this Court that the ground on which Petitioner's claim
has been rejected vide the impugned order
dt.08.08.2022 under Annexure-15, is not sustainable
in the eye of law.
6.3. Hence, while quashing order dt.08.08.2022, so
passed by Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-15, this
Court directs Opp. party No.1 to sanction provisional
family pension in favour of the Petitioner from the date
of her entitlement and release the arrear including
current family pension in her favour. This Court
// 6 //
directs Opp. party No.1 to complete the entire exercise
within a period of 2(two) months from the date of
receipt of this order.
6.4. However, it is observed that Petitioner will not
claim any other benefit, save and except, sanction of
provisional family pension.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:07:20
