10.03.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard the 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 sought
for the following reliefs:-
"In the facts and circumstances narrated
above and in the interest of justice, it is therefore,
prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously
pleased to admit the writ petition, call for the
records and after hearing from the parties be
pleased to direct the opp. parties not to disburse any
family pension, pensionary benefits and other
service benefits to the opp. party No.6.
And further be pleased to direct the opp.
parties to disburse entire pensionary benefit and
other service benefits in favour of the petitioner.
And may further be pleased to pass any other
order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
4. The factual background leading to filing the present writ
petition, in short, is that the Petitioner is the wife of the deceased
Government employee, namely Late Harish Chandra Mohanta.
After the death of the Petitioner's husband, her son Ranjan
Kumar Mohanta was appointed as a Junior Clerk at Betnoti
College under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the year
2012. Thereafter the son of the Petitioner Ranjan Kumar
Mohanta married to the Opposite Party No.6 on 04.03.2017.
Immediately after the marriage, the Opposite Party No.6 left the
matrimonial home. While this was the position, the above named
Ranjan Kumar Mohanta died in harness on 08.11.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, alleged
that Opposite Party No.6 has remarried in the meantime and she
has blessed with a child. As such, she has become ineligible to
receive the pensionary and other benefits as is due and
admissible to the deceased Government employee. In course for
his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the
letter dated 28.11.2025 at Annexure-5 series and submitted
before this Court that the Opposite Party No.6 earlier
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3669 of 2025 which
was disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated
13.02.2025 directing the Opposite Parties to consider the
grievance of the Petitioner in that case (Opposite Party No.6 in
the present writ petition).
6. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ
petition is that the Opposite Party No.6 by misleading this Court
has obtained an order and on the basis of such order, the
Government Opposite Parties are about to disburse the final
family pension as well as the other financial benefits as is due
and admissible to Late Ranjan Kumar Mohanta. He further
contended that the Petitioner being the mother of the deceased
Government employee is the only surviving legal heir, since the
Opposite Party No.6-daughter-in-law, because of her subsequent
marriage, is ineligible to receive the family pension. On such
ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Opposite Parties be directed to treat the present Petitioner as the
legal heir of Late Ranjan Kumar Mohanta and the family
pension as well as the other financial benefits as is due and
admissible be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the
Petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. He
further submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the
grievance involved in the present writ petition and further
considering the fact that the Petitioner is not approached the
competent authority for redressal of his grievance, he will have
no objection in the event this Court directs the competent
authority to consider the grievance of the Petitioner in
accordance with law and the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 within
a stipulated period of time.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of their submissions,
further taking note of the documents annexed to the writ petition
and keeping in view the nature of relief sought for in the present
writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present
writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation taking
therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents
within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the grievance of the present
Petitioner as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that
in the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1
along with a certified copy of this order, the Opposite Party No.1
shall conduct an inquiry through the Regional Director,
Education of Balasore or any other competent authority by
providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as
all affected parties and redressed the grievance of the Petitioner
by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is further directed
that in the event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to any
pensionary benefits as per the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and in
the absence of any other legal impediments, then necessary
follow up steps be taken to ensure that such amount as is due and
admissible to the Petitioner be sanctioned and disbursed in
favour of the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks. It is
further clarified that since an inquiry is already going on by the
Regional Director of Education, Balasore, as is evident from
letter dated 28.11.2025 at Annexure-5 series, it would be
desirable that the Regional Director of Education, Balasore be
directed to conduct a composite inquiry after providing
opportunity of hearing to all concerned and submit a report
before the Opposite Party No.1 for taking a final decision in the
matter. It is further directed that disbursal of the amount as is
due and admissible to late Ranjan Kumar Mohanta shall be
subject to the outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the
Regional Director of Education, Balasore and the consequential
orders to be passed by the Opposite Party No.1.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
