[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pankaj Nepak vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.513 of 2026
Pankaj Nepak ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Prasanta Kumar
Panda
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sarbeswar Behera,
AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.01.2026
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 the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for
the following relief:-
"In the above facts and circumstances of the
case, it is therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ
application, issue Rule NISI to the opp .parties to
show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder
shall not be allowed and upon perusing the causes, if
any shown, make the said Rule absolute and be
pleased to;
i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the order dtd. 24.3.2023 as under Annexure - 5
11) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the Opp. parties to sanction and release family
pension in favour of the Petitioner.
And may further be pleased to pass such other
order / orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the father of the Petitioner was working as a Teacher in A Primary
School on being duly appointed on 10.06.1948. On attaining the age
of superannuation w.e.f. 03.10.1977, the father of the Petitioner has
retired from service. On his retirement, the father of the Petitioner
was getting pensionary benefits vide PPO No.30635/SF/TBS.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Government of Odisha vide Finance Department Notification dated
23.07.2011 brought an amendment to the Orissa Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1992 and in view of such amendment, the
unmarried daughters even after attaining the age of twenty five
years, they can eligible to get family pension. Similarly, the School
and Mass Education Department, Government of Odisha extended
such benefits vide Notification dated 08.03.2018 under Annexure-2.
The Petitioner submitted representation before the authorities for
grant of pension. He further submitted that on the basis of the prayer
of the present Petitioner, the Pension Sanctioning Authority
recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of family pension
to the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) vide letter
dated 11.01.2023 at Annexure-4. The office of the Principal
Accountant General (A&E) after consideration of the aforesaid
proposal have taken a stand that the case of the Petitioner is not
covered for grant of family pension as the employee of the aided
institutional institution are covered under the Triple Benefit Scheme
(TBS) Rules, 1996. Hence, the proposal was returned to the PSA to
reconsider such proposal in terms of the above noted Rules, 1996.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended
that the ground raised by the office of the Principal Accountant
General (A&E) is no more res integra and such question has already
been finally decided by this Court in the case of Pushpalata Sarangi
v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.13241 of 2021, decided on
23.12.2022). Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on being asked,
fairly submitted that the aforesaid judgment was never placed before
the authorities for consideration.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted
that the prayer of the Petitioner has not been rejected altogether. The
office of the Principal Accountant General has raised an objection
and the matter has been remitted back to the PSA for
reconsideration. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
State contended that the present writ petition is pre-mature. He
further submitted that in the event no final decision has been taken
with regard to grant of family pension to the Petitioner, he will have
no objection if this Court directs the competent authority to take a
decision as per law within a stipulated period of time.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts of the present case, further taking note of the
documents annexed to the writ petition and keeping in view the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the
case of Pushpalata Sarangi (supra), this Court is of the view that the
matter requires reconsideration by the PSA in terms of the aforesaid
judgment. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to
approach the Opposite Party No.4-Block Education Officer, Patrapur
Block, District-Ganjam to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner in
terms of the above noted judgment within a period of eight weeks
from the date of communication of a copy of this order. In the event
any such recommendation is made, the office of the Principal
Accountant General (A&E)-Opposite Party No.3 shall also consider
the case of the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment subject
to applicability of the ratio of such judgment in case of the
Petitioner. In the event, the Opposite Party No.3 comes to a
conclusion that the Petitioner is covered by the ratio laid down in the
above mentioned judgment, then follow up steps be taken to ensure
that the Petitioner gets the family pension, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of
taking such decision.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
