[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Biswamitra Dhal vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 22 January, 2026
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33864 of 2021
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Biswamitra Dhal ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior
Advocate
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Ms. B.K. Sahu, A.G.A.
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the AG(A&E),
Odisha-O.P. No.2
W.P.(C) No.20019 of 2021
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Chandrabati Panda @ Chandrbati ..... Petitioner
Padhi
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Alok Kumar Mohapatra
-versus-
The Principal Accountant General ..... Opposite Parties
(A and E), Odisha and others
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the AG(A&E),
Odisha (O.P.No.1)
Ms. B.K. Sahu, A.G.A.
W.P.(C) No.36379 of 2022
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Manjulata Nayak @ Manjula Rout ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sambit Rath
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Ms. B.K. Sahu, A.G.A.
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the AG(A&E),
Odisha- O.P. No.2
W.P.(C) No.36411 of 2022
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Bijayani Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Amiya Ranjan Swain
-versus-
The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, ..... Opposite Parties
Finance Department, Odisha and
others
Represented by Adv. -
Ms. B.K. Sahu, A.G.A.
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the AG (A&E),
Odisha- O.P. Nos. 2 & 3
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 : Date of Judgement: 22.01.2026
Page 2 of 36
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. The above batch of Writ Petitions has been filed with the principal
prayer to direct the concerned Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse
family pension in favour of the Petitioners. Since the Writ Petitions are all
founded on an identical factual matrix and involve similar questions of law,
for the sake of expediency, they are taken up together for analogous hearing.
W.P.(C) No.33864 of 2021 is taken up as the lead matter for the sake of
convenience and to analyses the factual background of the writ petitions.
2. The W.P.(C) No.33864 of 2021 has been filed with a prayer to set-
aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the office of the
Principal Accountant General (A&E), Bhubaneswar, Odisha, under
Annexure-1, along with an additional prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to
sanction and disburse the Family Pension in favour of the Petitioner,
including arrears from the date of death of the deceased pensioner.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
3. A concise overview of the facts forming the basis for the challenge
in the present Writ Petition, is as follows; one Brundaban Behera, the
deceased father of the present Petitioner, initially served as an 'Agriculture
Over-sear' in the office of the Agriculture & Food production Department
until his retirement on 31.07.1997. Consequent upon his retirement the
deceased Govt. employee received his pension, since 01.08.1997, vide PPO
No.311032, under Annexure-3, until his death in 31.12.2011. After the
death of the Petitioner's father, it was his widow, i.e. the Petitioner's
mother, who received the family pension up until 09.06.2019 when she
passed away leaving behind a son and a divorced daughter, i.e. the
Petitioner. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, she was originally married
to one Susanta Kumar Dhal on 03.06.2006. However, due to demand of
dowry from her in-laws and other domestic issues, she was driven out of her
matrimonial home and, as per the Petitioner, she has been living at her
parents' house since 25.12.2010 and for her survival she is dependent on her
father's pension. It is also pertinent to note that the husband of the Petitioner
had filed a C.P Case No.283/2017 in the Court of Family Judge,
Kendrapada for dissolution of marriage. As a result, a divorce decree
dissolving the marriage between the parties has been passed on 10.01.2019,
a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the present Writ
Petition.
4. After the death of the last Pensioner, i.e. the Petitioner's mother,
the present Petitioner applied for family pension vide letter dated
28.08.2019, under Annexure-8, as per the applicable Orissa Civil Service
(Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter "1992, Rules"). Upon receipt of her
pension papers, the authority forwarded the same to the Deputy Director,
Agriculture. However, later the Opposite Party No.2-the Principal
Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, instead of considering
the pension papers, returned the same to the Director of Agriculture and
Food Production, Odisha for re-examination of the eligibility of the
Petitioner for availing family pension vide the impugned letter/ order
No.17.08.2021, under Annexure-1. Aggrieved by such conduct of the
Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present Writ Petition.
In re: W.P.(C) No.36411 of 2022
5. Inasmuch as the factual circumstances arising in W.P.(C) No.
36411 of 2022 bear certain distinguishing features vis-à-vis the other Writ
Petitions in the batch, it would be appropriate to enumerate those facts
separately.
6. The Petitioner's father, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, was serving
as a Constable and was in receipt of pension from the State under P.P.O.
No. 32605 until his demise on 30.05.2003. Upon his death, family pension
under the same P.P.O. was sanctioned and disbursed in favour of his widow,
i.e. the mother of the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Petitioner, who had been
married earlier, became a widow upon the death of her husband on
25.11.2007. Having no independent source of income after her husband's
demise, the Petitioner became destitute and took shelter at her maternal
home, where she resided with her mother and was dependant on her. She
continued to reside there until the unfortunate demise of her mother on
28.03.2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a representation to Opposite
Party No.2, through Opposite Party No.4, seeking sanction of family
pension in her favour. However, Opposite Party No.2, vide letter/order dated
30.06.2022, returned the Petitioner's pension papers to Opposite Party No.4,
clarifying that in view of Rule 80(2)(B)(iii) of the 1992, Rules, the Finance
Department Notification No. 32745/F dated 23.07.2011, and the Finance
Department clarification dated 24.09.2020, the Petitioner's claim was not
admissible.
7. It is the Petitioner's case that the refusal of the Opposite Parties to
sanction family pension in her favour is not in consonance with the Finance
Department Notification No. 32745/F dated 23.07.2011, the Finance
Department Memorandum dated 20.03.2013, and the Government of India
Memorandum dated 18.09.2014. Moreover, since the mother of the
Petitioner, who was granted family pension in accordance with the
applicable Rules after the demise of her husband, i.e. the original Pensioner,
was survived by the Petitioner, and since, under the said Rules, the
Petitioner became eligible to seek family pension only upon the demise of
her mother, she is eligible to receive the family pension.
8. As such, aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Parties in not
sanctioning the family pension in her favour and returning her pension
papers, the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the
impugned letter/ order dated 30.06.2022, under Annexure-2 to the aforesaid
Writ Petition, along with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to
sanction and disburse the family pension amount in favour of the Petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
9. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner.
Perused the written note of submissions as well as pleadings of both sides in
all the writ petitions taken up together for hearing. From the very outset, the
Petitioners have maintained that as per the applicable rules they are eligible
for family pension. However, the Opposite Parties have instead returned
their pension papers for re-examining their eligibility to receive the family
pension. Further, referring to the income certificate of the Petitioner at
Annexure-9, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Petitioner has no
other source of income and without the family pension she is suffering great
financial distress. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that the Petitioner along with her minor daughter are clearly
dependent on the pension of deceased father, and have been since
25.12.2010 when she was driven out by her husband owing to demand of
dowry. Also, since the divorce was granted by a competent court during the
lifetime of at least one of the parents, she is clearly entitled to the family
pension. As such, it was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the conduct
of the Opposite Parties in returning the Petitioner's pension papers, without
sanctioning the due family pension in her favour, is entirely illegal and
arbitrary.
10. At this point, referring to the impugned letter dated 17.08.2021
under Annexure-1, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the Opposite Parties have refused to consider the Petitioner's claim for
family pension based only on a Finance Department clarification vide letter
dated 24.09.2020 ("2020 clarification"), under Annexure-2, which is in
respect of one Sucharita Patra, the unmarried daughter of one late Ugrasen
Patra, and the said clarification does not concern the present Petitioner.
Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner stated that the said clarification
under Annexure-2 does not in any way bar the present Petitioner from
availing the family pension. In fact, it was submitted before this Court by
the learned senior counsel that earlier, vide the Finance Department
notification dated 23.07.2011 ("2011 notification") under Annexure-11, the
1992, Rules were amended so as to entitle a divorced daughter beyond the
age of twenty-five years to avail the benefits of family pension, provided
there exists a valid divorce.
11. Referring to the copy of the judgement by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Kendrapada, available at Annexure-7, the learned senior
counsel for the Petitioner has stressed on the fact that although initially the
Petitioner's marriage was solemnized to one Susanta Kumar Dhal, the
marriage was later dissolved by a valid decree of divorce under section 13-B
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, vide the judgement dated 10.01.2019 in
Civil Proceeding No.283 of 2017. However, the learned senior counsel
submitted, that even before the formal dissolution of the Petitioner's
marriage, the matrimonial relationship between the parties had disputed and
they were separated since 25.10.2010 when the Petitioner had been driven
out of her matrimonial home by her then husband. Ever since, the Petitioner
has been living separately at her parents' house as a dependent on her
deceased father and then her mother, who later passed away on 09.06.2019.
12. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this
Court to the 1992, Rules, stated that as per Rule 80(2)(B)(iii) read with the
finance department clarification dated 24.09.2020, a divorced daughter is
entitled to family pension, even after attaining the age of twenty five years,
as long as she has not remarried or died, whichever is earlier. Provided, the
divorce is valid in law and the deceased pensioner is survived by the
divorced daughter. Next, adverting to Rule 56 of the 1992, Rules, learned
senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the Petitioner was
dependent upon her deceased father, the original pensioner, under the Rules
she became entitled to family pension only upon the demise of her mother,
who was the immediate recipient of such pension after her father's demise.
Therefore, it was submitted that on a conjoint reading of the 1992 Rules,
specifically Rules 56, 83, and the Finance Department Memo No.8133/F
dated 20.03.2013, at Annexure-B/1 to the Counter Affidavit by the Opposite
Party No.1, the Petitioner is clearly entitled to the family pension.
13. Lastly, with respect to the decisions relied upon by the Opposite
Parties, i.e. the judgment dated 07.02.2022 in Union of India and Others v.
Ratna Sarkar (bearing WP.CT No. 10 of 2017) and Shri Ram Shridhar
Chimurkar v. Union of India and Anr, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
33, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said
judgments are clearly distinguishable on facts. It was contended that the
principal issues in the aforesaid cases pertained, respectively, to the
entitlement of a married daughter to family pension and to the eligibility of
an adopted child to claim family pension under the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, it was urged that the case of the present
Petitioner cannot be equated with those of the Petitioners in the decisions so
cited.
14. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned senior counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in returning the
pension papers of the Petitioner without sanctioning the same is illegal and
arbitrary in law, and, as such, the impugned order dated 17.08.2021, under
Annexure-1, be set aside and the Opposite Parties be directed to sanction
and disburse the family pension, including arrears, in favour of the
Petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
15. Heard Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel for AG (A&E), and
Ms.Babita Kumari Sahu, learned AGA for the Opposite Parties. In order to
controvert the submissions advanced by the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.2-
the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar has filed a
Counter Affidavit contending that the Directorate of Agriculture and Food
Production, vide letter No. 122912 dated 19.04.2021, forwarded the
Petitioner's pension papers for consideration in terms of the Finance
Department Notification No. 32745/F dated 23.07.2011 (Annexure-11 to the
present writ petition). Placing reliance on the said notification, learned
counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that, subject to fulfilment of the
prescribed conditions, the benefit of family pension stands extended to an
unmarried/ widowed/ divorced daughter above the age of twenty-five years
until her remarriage or until she starts earning livelihood, or death,
whichever occurs earlier. It was further contended that Rule 80(2)(B)(iii) of
the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 provides that where the
deceased pensioner is survived by an unmarried, widowed, or divorced
daughter who has attained majority, such daughter is entitled to claim family
pension in Form-K. According to the learned counsel for Opposite Party
No.2 appearing for the Opposite Party No.2, this procedural framework has
been extended to divorced daughters beyond the age of twenty-five years by
virtue of the aforesaid Finance Department Notification dated 23.07.2011.
16. The Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 further submitted
that upon the consideration of the pension papers of the Petitioner it was
found that the Government Employee-Pensioner, i.e. the father of the
Petitioner, passed away on 31.12.2011 and the Petitioner had her marriage
dissolved on 10.01.2019 via divorce on mutual consent in C.P No.283 of
2017, as per Annexure-7. As such, the Petitioner attained the status of a
divorced daughter claiming the family pension only after the death of her
father-deceased Pensioner. Therefore, the Pensioner-Government Employee
cannot be said to have been survived by the Petitioner and she cannot be
held eligible for receiving the benefit of family pension as per the 1992
Rules, the 2011 notification (Annexure-11) and the 2020 clarification
(Annexure-2).
17. It was further urged by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2
appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 that keeping in view the aforesaid
legal position, the family pension papers of the Petitioner were returned by
the office of the Opposite Party No.2, vide letter dated 17.08.2021 to the
Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha with a request to re-
examine the eligibility of the Petitioner to avail the family pension. It was
submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is merely a functionary of the State
and is responsible for authorizing pensionary benefits to government
employees and their family members as per the 1992, Rules. It was stated
that in the present case, since it is a policy decision of the Government of
India, the Opposite Party No.2 does not have the authority to disburse the
family pension in favour of the Petitioner without any specific order to that
effect from the State Government.
18. In addition to the above, Opposite Party No.1-State has filed a
separate counter affidavit. Referring thereto, it has been contended therein
that the present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be
dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party, namely, the
Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment, which has not been
impleaded in the present proceedings. It was further submitted that the
scheme providing for family pension is admittedly a welfare measure,
however in the present matter the principal issue falling for consideration is
whether a married daughter of a deceased Government Employee-
Pensioner, who is above the age of twenty-five years, is entitled to family
pension in the event she obtains a decree of divorce long after the death of
the pensioner-Government Employee.
19. To further substantiate its stance, the Opposite Party No.1-State, in
the aforesaid counter affidavit, has given a brief account of the historical
development of the relevant rules governing disbursal of family pension. It
was contended that the preset version of the relevant rules, i.e. the 1992
Rules is an evolution of the Finance Department resolution No.13795/F
dated 19.09.1951, which was later modified vide a subsequent Resolution
No.215/F dated 03.01.1962. Thereafter, the State Government formulated
the 'Orissa Civil Service Family Pension Scheme, 1964'which included a
option based scheme where employees opting to be covered under the
scheme had to contribute certain amount before availing the benefits therein.
The said provisions were incorporated in Chapter VIII of the Orissa Pension
Rules, 1977 but the condition for contribution was done away with effect
from 13.12.1977. At this point, the maximum age limit for an unmarried
daughter to avail family pension was 21 years, which was then enhanced to
25 years since 13.10.1987. The said provision was also a part of the later
1992 Rules. Finally, vide the Finance Department Notification No.32745/F
dated 23.07.2011, under Annexure-11, the State Government has extended
the scope of family pension, subject to certain conditions provided in Rule
56(5) of the 1992 Rules, to unmarried/ widowed/ divorced/ disable
widowed/ disabled divorced daughters of deceased State Government
employees/ Pensioners even after attaining 25 years of age.
20. In the aforesaid counter-affidavit, it has been further stated that the
Petitioner has not furnished the complete details of the service background
of her father, i.e. the Government Servant-Pensioner. However, while
considering her case, it was later ascertained that the father of the Petitioner
received monthly pension till his death on 31.12.2011, after which it was
disbursed in favour of the widow of the deceased Pensioner, i.e. the mother
of the Petitioner till her death on 09.06.2019. In the meanwhile the
Petitioner's marriage was dissolved vide a decree dated 10.01.2019.
Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be said to fulfill the tell-tale stipulation
under Rule 80(2)(B)(iii) of the 1992 Rules and she cannot be considered to
be a divorced daughter dependent on the pension received by the retired
Government Employee at the time of his death on 31.12.2011. Additionally,
with regard to the Petitioner's contention that she was deserted by her
husband since 25.12.2010, the learned AGA submitted that there is nothing
on record to show any legal proceeding regarding payment of maintenance
or otherwise initiated against the ex-husband of the Petitioner around the
time she claims to have been deserted by him. It was also contended that it
is the date of the decree of divorce which is the determining factor when
considering whether the Petitioner was actually a dependent on the pension
received by the her father-deceased Government Servant.
21. Next, addressing the Petitioner's contention that non-consideration
of her claim to family pension by the Opposite Party No.2, is based on the
Finance Department letter dated 24.09.2020 which actually refers to a
different individual and not the Petitioner, and, as such, shall not bar the
Petitioner's right to avail family pension rightfully due to her, the learned
AGA, referring to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1
submitted that the Petitioner has referred to an unmarried daughter and not a
divorced daughter. In this regard, the learned AGA stated before this Court
that the words "Unmarried", "Widowed", and "Divorced" all have different
connotations. An unmarried daughter is dependent on her father right from
her youth until her marriage or death and remains a part of the father's
family as long as she remains unmarried. Whereas, a widowed or divorced
daughter becomes a part of her husband's family upon marriage. She attains
the status of a 'widow' or 'divorcee' upon the death of her husband or
divorce. Moreover, it is the status of the children of the Pensioner-
Government Employee at the time of his death which would determine their
eligibility to receive family pension. As such, it was contended that a
widowed/ divorced daughter cannot be treated at par with an unmarried
daughter.
22. Lastly, the learned AGA for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted
before this Court that, although pension is a right and not a mere bounty, the
scheme of family pension, being a welfare legislation intended for the
benefit of eligible family members of a retired Government employee, has
undergone subsequent liberalisation and simplification. However, such
liberalisation, it was contended, does not dispense with the requirement of
strict adherence to the statutory provisions governing the sanction of family
pension. Referring specifically to Rule 80 of the 1992 Rules, learned AGA
submitted that where a deceased Pensioner is survived by a widowed/
divorced/ unmarried daughter, the Pension Sanctioning Authority is duty-
bound to conduct a thorough scrutiny before forwarding the case to the
office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha. It was submitted
that any error committed by the Pension Sanctioning Authority while
forwarding a claim does not, by itself, create or confer a right on the
applicant to avail family pension. On these grounds, the learned counsel for
Opposite Party No.2 has urged that the present Writ Petition, being devoid
of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
23. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
materials available on record, including the counter affidavits filed by the
Opposite Parties and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioner. At the
outset, it is undisputed that the retired Government employee, i.e. the father
of the Petitioner, superannuated on 31.07.1997 and was in receipt of pension
with effect from 01.08.1997 until his demise on 31.12.2011. Upon his death,
family pension was sanctioned in favour of his widow, i.e. the Petitioner's
mother, and continued to be disbursed until her death on 09.06.2019. As one
of the legal heirs, the Petitioner, whose marriage was solemnized on
03.06.2006 and subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent dated 10.01.2019 passed in C.P. No. 283 of 2017, applied for grant
of family pension on 28.08.2019 under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1992. However, the Opposite Parties, instead of sanctioning the
pension, returned the Petitioner's pension papers on the principal ground
that given the date of death of the deceased pensioner and the date of
divorce of the Petitioner, the deceased Pensioner cannot be said to have
been "survived" by the Petitioner and, as such, the Petitioner is ineligible for
family pension under the 1992 Rules, the Notification dated 2011
(Annexure-11), and the clarification issued in 2020 (Annexure-2). The
Petitioner, on the other hand, has taken a firm stand that although the decree
of divorce was passed on 10.01.2019, she had been dependent upon her
father's pension since 25.10.2010, i.e. from the date she was driven out of
her matrimonial home. On this premise, it has been contended that she falls
squarely within the category of eligible beneficiaries and is entitled to the
grant of family pension
24. The central issue which emerges from the aforesaid undisputed
facts is whether the Petitioner can be construed as a dependent eligible to
receive family pension in light of the fact that she became a divorcee after
the death of the Pensioner-retired Government Employee, even though, as
per the Petitioner, she was already dependent on her father-deceased
Pensioner since 25.12.2010, having been ousted from her matrimonial
home. Therefore, in order to fairly adjudicate the relief claimed by the
Petitioner, this Court is required to first decide as to whether a divorced
daughter can be considered a beneficiary for receiving family pension under
the applicable rules when the date of her divorce is post the date of death of
the Pensioner, but she has been living with her father-Pensioner prior to his
demise.
25. Before venturing into the merits of the matter, this Court considers
it necessary to address the objection to the maintainability of the present
Writ Petition raised by Opposite Party No.1-State in its counter affidavit.
The objection proceeds on the premise that the Department of Agriculture
and Farmers' Empowerment is a necessary party and, having not been
impleaded, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It
is apposite to note the settled position of law that a necessary party is one
without whose presence no effective or enforceable order can be passed.
Non-joinder of a necessary party is fatal in respect of maintainability of
Writ. Therefore, maintainability of a writ petition, in the context of an
objection of non-joinder, is required to be examined on the touchstone of
whether the authority competent to decide the claim and to implement the
relief sought is present before the Court, whether any adverse or binding
order is proposed to be passed against the alleged non-impleaded entity as a
distinct legal person and whether the interests of such entity are adequately
represented through the parties already on record.
26. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court finds no substance in
the objection raised by the State. A perusal of the cause title reveals that the
Director, Agriculture & Food Production, Odisha, along with the Deputy
Director of Agriculture, Keonjhar, and the District Agriculture Officer,
Keonjhar have been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.3, 4 and 5 respectively,
along with the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar
as Opposite Party No.2. The said authorities are the functionaries through
whom the Department acts and are vested with the competence to consider
the Petitioner's claim as well as to give effect to any directions that may be
issued by this Court. In the presence of Opposite Party Nos.3, 4 and 5, it
cannot be said that no effective or enforceable order can be passed in the
absence of the Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Empowerment as a
separately named party. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view
that the objection is without force, and the Writ Petition is maintainable.
27. Before proceeding further, it would be most expedient to quote
relevant provisions of the 1992, Rules applicable to the present matter.
Rule 56(5)(e), under Chapter-VII of the 1992, Rules;
"56. Family Pension
56 (5) (e) In the case of widowed / divorced / disabled widowed /
disabled divorced daughters even after attaining the age of twenty five
years till their remarriage or death whichever is earlier subject to the
condition that in case of divorced daughters / disabled divorced
daughter, the divorce is valid in law and the case of widowed / disabled
widowed daughter, the family pension for life from the date of death of
her husband and there is no other eligible unmarried daughter beyond
the age of twenty five years and disabled son / disabled unmarried
daughter to receive the family pension. The benefit of family pension
for life shall be admissible to the widowed / divorced daughter only
after cessation of the claim of disabled widowed / disabled divorced
daughter. The other conditions governing grant of family pension to the
unmarried daughters as specified in clause (d) shall also be applicable
in the case of widowed / disabled widowed / disabled divorced
daughters for grant of family pension in their favour. (vide Finance
Department Notification No.32745/F., dtd.23.07.2011).
Provided that if the son or unmarried daughter including
widowed / divorced daughter of a Government servant is suffering from
any disorder or disabled of mind or is physically crippled / disabled so
as to render him or her, unable to earn a living even after attaining the
age of twenty five years, the family pension shall be paid to such son or
unmarried daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely-
(i) If such son or unmarried daughter is one among two or more
children of the Government servant / pensioner, the family pension
shall be initially payable to the children in the order set out in clause
(c) of sub-rule (7) hereinafter until the last child attains the age of
twenty five years and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in
favour of the son or unmarried daughter suffering from disorder or
disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be
payable to him/her for life. The said benefit shall also be admissible in
the case of disabled widowed / disabled divorced daughter of a
Government servant / pensioner in case there is no other disabled son /
disabled unmarried daughter and eligible unmarried daughter. (vide
Finance Department Notification No.32745/F., dtd.23.07.2011)
(ii) If there are more than one such son or unmarried daughter
suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically
crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in order of their
birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the
elder next above him / her ceases to be eligible. (vide Finance
Department Notification No.32745/F., dtd.23.07.2011)
Explanation- The similar principle shall also be adopted in case
of disabled widowed / disabled divorced daughter subject to the
condition that there is no other disabled son or disabled unmarried
daughter of the deceased Government servant / pensioner. (vide
Finance Department Notification No.32745/F.,dated 23.07.2011)"
***
Rule 80(2)(B)(iii), under Chapter-X of the 1992 Rules;
"80. Sanction of family pension and residuary gratuity on the death
of a pensioner-
(2)(B) (iii) Where the deceased pensioner is survived by unmarried /
widowed / divorced daughters who have attained the age of eighteen
years, such daughter may herself submit a claim in Form-K to the Head
of Office. But, in the case of disabled widowed / disabled divorced
daughter, the guardian of such daughter may submit a claim in Form-K
to the Appointing Authority (vide Finance Department Notification
No.32745/F., dtd.23.07.2011) and (vide Finance Department
Notification No.24142/F., dtd.04.09.2015)"
28. On a careful analysis of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1992, particularly Chapter VII relating to "Family Pension" and the allied
provisions relevant to the present case, it becomes evident that the
legislative intent underlying the said Rules is to confer pensionary benefits
upon a Government employee who has rendered service to the State, as well
as upon his/ her dependent family members. It is now well settled, as
consistently held by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
various High Courts, that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of charity,
but a vested and enforceable right flowing from the long and faithful service
rendered by the Government employee. Pension, in essence, constitutes a
measure of social security intended to ensure dignity and subsistence to the
superannuated employee and, upon his demise, to his/ her dependent family
members (see A.P. Srivastava v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC
227, D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, U.P.
Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630
and a catena of other decisions).
29. Proceeding on the same premise, a statutory scheme providing for
family pension can be considered to be plainly in the nature of a welfare
measure, intended to confer social security upon the dependent family
members of a Government employee who has rendered long years of
service. Such a scheme squarely falls within the category of a Beneficial
Legislation. It is well settled that beneficial legislations are to be construed
liberally so as to advance the object sought to be achieved. So far as a
Beneficial Legislation is concerned, Justice Krishna Iyer in Som Prakash
Rekhi v. Union of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 449, stated that a
benignant provision must receive a benignant construction and, even if two
interpretations are permissible, the one which furthers the beneficial object
should be the one that is preferred. The said principle of interpretation was
again enumerated in S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in (1996) 4
SCC 596, wherein it was observed that;
"12. It is a well-known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text
and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while
interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. The courts must
look to the object which the statute seeks to achieve while
interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach
for interpreting the Act is necessary."
30. Thereafter, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
reference to the ESI Act, in Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn.,
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 332, held that;
"27. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary
to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of
sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters
in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social
welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who
were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course
of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be
construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative
intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on
its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers
the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would
frustrate it. ..."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court, once again in Bombay Anand Bhavan
Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 61, while discussing
the Employees' State Insurance Act, made the following observation
regarding a Beneficial Legislation,
"20. The Employees' State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation.
The main purpose of the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is to
provide for certain benefits to employees of a factory in case of
sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for
certain other matters in relation thereto. The Employees' State
Insurance Act is a social security legislation and the canons of
interpreting a social legislation are different from the canons of
interpretation of taxation law. The courts must not countenance any
subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social legislation and
the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of the Act in
order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing this
legislation on the statute book. The Act, therefore, must receive a
liberal construction so as to promote its objects."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijayakumar, reported in 2008
(4) MLJ 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph Nos. 12 to 15,
held that it is well settled that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare
statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in
consonance with the object of the Act and for the benefit of the person for
whom the Act was made should be preferred. In other words, beneficial or
welfare statutes should be given a liberal and not literal or strict
interpretation. Likewise, in Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank
Retired Employees Assn., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 44, the Hon'ble Apex
Court further observed;
"16. ...Remedial statutes, in contradistinction to penal statutes, are
known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations.
Such welfare statutes always receive a liberal construction. They are
required to be so construed so as to secure the relief contemplated by
the statute. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands
that labour and welfare legislation have to be broadly and liberally
construed having due regard to the directive principles of State policy.
The Act with which we are concerned for the present is undoubtedly
one such welfare oriented legislation meant to confer certain benefits
upon the employees working in various establishments in the
country."
(Emphasis Supplied)
33. In State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280, the
Hon'ble Apex Court was faced with the question of ascertaining the
meaning of "acquired" and "vested" for the purpose of Section 10 of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court not only
referred to the dictionary meanings assigned to these terms, but also placed
heavy reliance on the context in which the words were used, and with regard
to interpretation of certain words or phrases occurring in a welfare statute,
observed that;
"21. ... Each word, phrase or sentence that we get in a statutory
provision, if not defined in the Act, then is to be construed in the light
of the general purpose of the Act. As held by this Court in Organo
Chemical Industries v. Union of India [(1979) 4 SCC 573 : 1980
SCC (L&S) 92] that a bare mechanical interpretation of the words
and application of a legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose
will reduce most of the remedial and beneficial legislation to futility.
Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in
Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan [Directorate of
Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 : 1994 SCC
(Cri) 785] . Words and phrases, therefore, occurring in the statute
are to be taken not in an isolated or detached manner, they are
associated on the context but are read together and construed in the
light of the purpose and object of the Act."
34. Thereafter, in Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., reported in
(2014) 9 SCC 657 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so far as interpretation of a
beneficial/ welfare legislation is concerned, once again observed that;
"16. The primary rule of interpretation of statutes may be the literal
rule, however, in the case of beneficial legislations and legislations
enacted for the welfare of employees, workmen, this Court has on
numerous occasions adopted the liberal rule of interpretation to
ensure that the benefits extend to those workers who need to be
covered based on the intention of the legislature.
***
31. We may safely conclude that the literal rule of construction may
be the primary approach to be utilised for interpretation of a statute
and that words in the statute should in the first instance be given
their meaning as understood in common parlance. However, the ESI
Act is a beneficial legislation. It seeks to provide social security to
those workers as it encompasses. In the light of the cases referred
above, it may be seen that the traditional approach can be
substituted. A dictionary meaning may be attached to the words in a
statute in preference over the traditional meaning. However, for this
purpose as well, the scheme, context and objects of the legislature
must be taken into consideration. Taking into due consideration the
nature and purpose of the ESI Act, the dictionary meaning as
understood in the context of the said Act would be preferable to
achieve the objects of the legislature."
35. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the principal issue that
arises concerns the determination of the point of time from which the
Petitioner's dependency on her father, the retired Government employee-
pensioner, is to be reckoned for the purpose of adjudicating her entitlement
to family pension. The controversy hovers around whether such dependency
is to be computed from the date on which the Petitioner was separated from
her husband and came to reside with her parents after being ousted from her
matrimonial home, or from the date of the decree of divorce. According to
the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner's dependency can be recognised only
from the date of divorce, which admittedly post-dates the death of the
Pensioner, thereby disentitling her to family pension. Per contra, the
Petitioner contends that her dependency must be assessed from the date she
left her husband's house and began residing with her parents as a dependent,
irrespective of the subsequent formal dissolution of marriage.
36. So far as the statutory framework is concerned, there is no dispute
that the family pension scheme is a welfare legislation enacted with the
objective of providing financial security to the dependent family members
of a retired Government employee-Pensioner. A perusal of the legislative
evolution of the family pension scheme, as reflected in the Counter
Affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.1, particularly paragraph 7 thereof,
clearly demonstrates a progressive and purposive expansion of the scope of
the legislation in the direction of its above-stated objective. Initially, in the
year 1951, family pension was made available to eligible family members
only for a limited period of five years, or for the unexpired portion thereof
from the date of retirement. Subsequently, by the Finance Department
Resolution dated 03.01.1962, the duration of the benefit was extended to ten
years, further extendable by a maximum period of five years. Thereafter,
under the Pension Rules of 1977, the contributory nature of family pension
was abolished, and the benefit was extended to eligible family members
with an enhancement of the upper age limit to twenty-five years. These
provisions were later carried forward and incorporated into the Odisha Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.
37. The scheme was further liberalised to extend family pension, in the
absence of a spouse or children, to the parents of the deceased Government
Employee. Next, vide Finance Department Notification No.32745/F dated
23.07.2011, particularly clause 4 thereof, the benefit of family pension was
extended to an unmarried daughter even after attaining the age of twenty-
five years until her marriage or death, subject to her income being within the
prescribed limit. By the same notification, Rule 56(5)(e) was introduced,
enabling a divorced daughter to avail family pension even after the age of
twenty-five years until her remarriage or death, whichever occurs earlier,
subject to the condition that the divorce must be legally valid. Most
recently, by Finance Department Notification No.15316/F dated 19.05.2025
promulgating the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2025,
read with Office Memorandum No. 16028/F dated 29.05.2025, the
Legislature has further expanded the ambit of family pension by amending
Rule 56(5)(a) to include a post-retiral spouse as well as a judicially
separated wife or husband within the fold of eligible beneficiaries.
38. From the foregoing analysis and the undisputed facts of the matter,
three conclusions clearly emerge. Firstly, the Petitioner does not incur any
of the disqualifications contemplated under Rule 56 or Rule 80(2)(B)(iii) of
the 1992, Rules. Secondly, the Petitioner has obtained a valid decree of
divorce and, therefore, satisfies the statutory condition present in the
relevant provision. Thirdly, the legislative trajectory over the years
demonstrates a conscious and consistent endeavour by the lawmakers to
broaden the ambit of the family pension scheme so as to include an
expanding class of dependent family members of a deceased pensioner, who
are in need of such financial support. A cumulative reading of the 1992
Rules, particularly Chapter VII titled "Family Pension", together with the
historical evolution of the scheme, makes it abundantly clear that the
dominant purpose of the scheme is to ensure that the immediate family
members of a deceased pensioner, who were dependent upon him/ her
during his or her lifetime, are not denied the benefit of family pension. As
such, depriving a bona fide dependent of such benefit on the basis of an
unduly rigid or technical interpretation of the Rules would defeat the very
object sought to be achieved by the Scheme/ Statute. A similar view has
been echoed by coordinate Benches of this Court in Lokajanani Sahany v.
State of Odisha & Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2024 vide order
dated 04.09.2024 and Mamata Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors, bearing
W.P.(C) No.15859 of 2024 vide order dated 19.09.2024.
39. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Petitioner,
who claims entitlement to family pension and has challenged the action of
the Opposite Parties in declining to sanction the same, obtained a decree of
divorce on 10.01.2019, i.e. long after the demise of her father, the retired
Government Employee-Pensioner, on 31.12.2011. However, it is equally
undisputed that the Petitioner had been ousted from her matrimonial home
and was residing with her parents since 25.12.2010, which was prior to the
death of her father. This factual position clearly establishes the Petitioner's
dependency, initially upon her father, the deceased Pensioner, and thereafter
upon her mother, who passed away subsequently.
40. In this context, the Finance Department Notification No. 26253/F
dated 24.09.2020, placed at Annexure-2 to the present writ petition, while
clarifying Rule 80(2)(B)(iii), reiterates at Serial No.1 that where a Pensioner
is survived by a divorced daughter who was dependent upon the Pensioner
at the time of his or her death, such daughter would be entitled to submit her
claim in Form-K and receive family pension. Similarly, the Office
Memorandum dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Finance Department, annexed
as Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.1, records the
decision of the State Government that divorced daughters of deceased
Government pensioners shall be eligible for family pension in terms of
Finance Department Notification No. 32745/F dated 23.07.2011. As noticed
earlier, the sole deficiency in the Petitioner's claim, as pointed out in the
impugned letter dated 17.08.2021, is the alleged absence of dependency of
the Petitioner at the time of the Pensioner's demise. Significantly, the latest
Office Memorandum No. 16028/F dated 29.05.2025, which serves as a
ready reckoner of the 1992, Rules introduced by Notification No. 15316/F
dated 19.05.2025, clarifies at Serial No.11 that, pursuant to amended Rule
56(5)(e), a divorced daughter shall be eligible for family pension if she was
originally dependent upon her father or mother who was a Government
employee. This marks a clear departure from the earlier versions of the
scheme which did not expressly predicate eligibility to avail family pension
based on the dependency of the family members claiming the same.
41. This Court is of the considered view that such an interpretation not
only further augments the objective of the pension scheme but is also
consistent with the settled principles governing the interpretation of
beneficial and welfare legislation, which, in the present case, include the
1992, Rules and the allied clarifications and notifications.
In re: W.P.(C) No.36411 of 2022
42. A plain reading of Rules 80(2)(A)(i), 80(2)(B)(i) and 80(2)(B)(iii)
of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 makes it clear that the Petitioner would
acquire eligibility to receive family pension only upon the demise of her
mother, who was the lawful recipient of family pension after the death of the
original Pensioner. It is also undisputed that after the death of her husband,
the Petitioner had moved in with her mother and was wholly dependent
upon her, surviving on the family pension received by the mother, who was
the immediate predecessor-in-entitlement prior to the Petitioner.
43. As it stands, although the Petitioner qualifies all other eligibility
criteria for receiving family pension, a strict interpretation of the applicable
pension scheme prevents her from availing the same. In addition, the Office
Memo dated 18.09.2014 by the Department of Pension & Pensioner's
Welfare, Government of India, a copy of which is available at Anexure-5 to
W.P.(C) No.36411 of 2012, contains certain clarification regarding
entitlement of family pension as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The
third paragraph with reference to the earlier Office Memorandum dated
11.09.2013, clarifies that where a divorced daughter attains such a status
during the period when her "father/mother" was receiving "pension/family
pension", she would be entitled to family pension, subject to fulfilment of
other conditions. The deliberate use of the phrases "father/mother" and
"pension/family pension" unmistakably indicates an intent to include both
the original parent-Government Employee receiving the pension and the
subsequent parent who received the family pension after demise of the
original Pensioner.
44. Given that the aforesaid CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is the pari
materia framework to the present 1992, Rules, this Court, in light of the
broader analysis rendered in the previous paragraphs, deems it appropriate
and desirable to adopt an interpretation that advances the beneficial object
of the pension scheme. Such an approach not only aligns with the settled
principles governing interpretation of welfare legislation but also avoids an
unduly restrictive construction that would defeat the very purpose of family
pension
CONCLUSION
45. Taking into consideration the foregoing analysis of the applicable
legal principles, the relevant statutory provisions, judicial precedents cited
hereinabove, and the undisputed facts of the case, this Court holds that the
Petitioner was indeed dependent upon her father, the deceased Pensioner, at
the time of his demise. The Petitioner, having obtained a valid decree of
divorce and having satisfied the income-related criteria, fulfils all other
conditions requisite for availing family pension. In view of the aforesaid
conclusion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conduct of the
Opposite Parties in returning the Petitioner's pension papers without
sanctioning family pension in her favour is unsustainable in law and
contrary to the interpretation of the applicable Rules adopted by this Court.
Consequently, the impugned letter/ order dated 17.08.2021, issued by the
Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, i.e. Opposite
Party No. 2, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
46. Accordingly, the impugned letter/ order dated 17.08.2021 issued by
the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, i.e. Opposite
Party No.2, under Annexure-1, is hereby set-aside. The present Writ Petition
is allowed with a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to re-consider
the case of the Petitioner on the basis of the pension papers submitted by her
at Annexure-3 and, to sanction and disburse the family pension, including
arrears, if any, due and admissible to the Petitioner, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of this judgement. In the event any further information,
in addition to the Pension Papers already submitted at Annexure-3, is
required to carry out the aforesaid direction, the same may be called for
from the Petitioner.
47. Consequently, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed with the
aforesaid observation/ direction.
48. All other Writ Petitions forming part of the present batch, including
W.P.(C) No.36411 of 2022, are hereby allowed in terms of the aforesaid
analysis and directions, and the respective impugned orders challenged
therein shall stand set aside accordingly.
49. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 22nd January, 2026/Sisir Kumar Sethi/P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
