Jharana Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 9 March, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            WP(C) No.27718 of 2025
            Jharana Mishra               .....       Petitioner
                                                            Represented by Adv. -
                                                            Himanshu Bhusan Dash

                                          -versus-
            State Of Odisha & Ors.               .....           Opposite Parties
                                                            Represented by Adv. -
                                                            Mr. A.Mohanty, A.S.C.

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                              ORDER

Order No.                                    09.03.2026
    03.        1.    This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
               /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

"Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstance narrated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ calling upon the Opp.parties to show cause as to Why the letter issued by the Controller of accounts, Odisha/OP No-3 in Annexure-5 returning back the family pension Papers in respect of the petitioner on the ground that father expired before the judgment date, shall not be quashed and with further direction to allow the petitioner to get the benefit of

family pension under OCS( pension) rules, 1992. And May be pleased to pass such other order (s) as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. The factual background of the Petitioner's case leading to filling of the present writ application, in short is that, the father of the Petitioner who had retired from service as a Primary School Teacher was getting pension w.e.f. 31.12.1996. The Petitioner who was earlier married was given out of her after matrimonial house and started to live with her parent's house w.e.f. 25.10.2005. Thereafter, a divorce case was filed before the learned Judge Family Court, Jagatsinghpur on 31.03.2003. On 09.07.2023, the mother of the Petitioner died. Similarly, the father of the Petitioner who was the pensioner also died on 08.10.2023. While this was the position, a decree of divorce was granted on 02.11.2023. A copy of the judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jagatsinhgpur in CP No.76 of 2023 has been filed along with the present writ application at mark as Annexure-4.

5. Referring to the judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed in the abovenoted CP, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended before this Court that the factual assertion of the Petitioner that she is staying separately with her parent's since 25.10.2005 has not been disputed. He further submitted that although the divorce proceeding was finalised on the basis of mutual agreement between the parties, however, the fact that the Petitioner has been residing with her parents since 25.10.2005, and was dependent on her father's pension is not disputed by the parties.

6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner

contended that at the time of grant of mutual divorce decree, the petitioner has been awarded a consolidated sum of Rs.2 lakhs, which is not enough for survival of the present Petitioner. He further contended that as per the existing rules the Petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefit of his late father as a divorced daughter. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course his argument also referred to the order passed by this Court in Kalpana Sethi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. decided in W.P.(C) No.43076 of 2023 on 16.01.2024. Referring to the said order, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the case of the Petitioner is an identical to the one involved in the case of Kalpana Sethi's Case (supra). Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed that present writ application be considered and disposed of in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Kalpana Sethi (supra).

7. Learned counsel for the State on other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, considering the background facts of this case, the Petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefit as a divorced daughter in view of the fact that the decree of divorce was granted only on 02.11.2023 after the death of the pensioner on 08.10.2023. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the circular of the State Government dated 24.02.2023 by the Finance Department, Govt. of Odisha. By referring to the aforesaid circular, learned counsel for the State contended that since the status of the Petitioner was not that of a divorced daughter at the time of the death of the pensioner, she is not entitled to get the pensionary benefits as a divorced daughter. He further submitted that the order passed in the case of Kalpana Sethi (supra) has been challenged by the State-Opposite Parties by filing a writ appeal which is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Division

Bench. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, this Court prima facie observes that the Petitioner who happens to be a divorced daughter of a deceased pensioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties for grant of pensionary benefits as a divorced daughter under the provisions of O.C.S. Pension Rules, 1992. On perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the Petitioner, who was the pensioner died on 08.10.2023, whereas the decree of divorce at Anenxure-4 was granted only on 02.11.2023. Therefore, there was a gap of few weeks only. Moreover, the factual assertion of the Petitioner that after being driven out of her matrimonial house she was staying with her parents since 25.10.2005, has not been disputed. Such fact is evident from the judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed in C.P. No.76 of 2023. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that since 25.10.2005, the Petitioner was dependent on the income of her deceased father which was being derived from his pensionary benefits. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the order passed in the case of Kalpana Sethi (supra).

9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as the legal position, further taking note of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.43076 of 2023 dated 16.01.2024 (Kalpana Sethi vs. State of Odisha & Ors.), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the

Competent Authority i.e. Opposite Party No.4, D.E.O., Jagatsinghpur by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with a certified copy of order passed in Kalpana Sethi's case (supra) within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4 shall consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the order passed in Kalpana Sethi's case (supra) within a period of eight weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

Rubi