Prativa Purohit vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 20 March, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.8809 of 2026

            Prativa Purohit                     .....                   Petitioner
                                                        Represented by Adv. -
                                                        Mr. Tushar Kanta Nayak

                                          -versus-

            State of Odisha and others          .....           Opposite Parties

                                                        Represented by Adv. -
                                                        Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC

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

20.03.2026 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 learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

"Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ / writs, to quash the Rejection letter / Memo No.5153 dated 25.04.2025 under Armexure-5 issued by the Opp. Party No.4-the

Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and further directed to the Opp. Party No.3-Block Education Officer, Ulunda in the district of Subarnapur to resubmit the pension paper of the petitioner and direct to sanction / release the family pension as due and admissible w.e.f. 11.08.2024 within a stipulated period.

And / or pass such other order or direction as deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the father of the Petitioner, who was a Government servant and a pensioner, after his retirement died on 16.01.2005. The wife of the deceased Government employee and the present Petitioner, who happens to be the daughter of the Government employee, were survived by the deceased Government employee. While this was the position, the Petitioner became a widow on 20.08.2009. It is apt to mention here that after the death of Government employee on 16.01.2005, his wife was getting family pension. The wife of the deceased Government employee died on 10.08.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that after the Petitioner became widow on 20.08.2009, she was dependant on her mother for her survival and both were surviving on the family pension received by her mother. He further submitted that after the death of the mother of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has submitted an application for grant of family pension on the

ground that she is the widowed daughter of the pensioner. Such application was forwarded by the Block Education Officer, Ulunda to the Opposite Party No.4-The Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar with a recommendation for sanction of family pension to the Petitioner vide letter dated 10.03.2025

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the application of the Petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected vide Memo No.5153 dated 25.04.2025 by the Opposite Party No.4, i.e. the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

7. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner being the widowed daughter of the Government servant is entitled to the family pension. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to order dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.30045 of 2024 (in the matter of Hemangini Panigrahi v. State of Odisha and others). A copy of the order dated 15.05.2025 has been filed along with the writ petition as Annexure-7.

8. On perusal of the order dated 15.05.2025, this Court observes that a widowed daughter of one deceased

Government employee had approached this Court for grant of family pension. After elaborate discussion of the rules and the legal provisions, this Court allowed the writ application, quashed the impugned rejection order and directed the Opposite Parties to re-submit the pension papers of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order along with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.4 to sanction the family pension and release the same in favour of the Petitioner in that case as per her entitlement within a period of six weeks. On close scrutiny of the factual background in Hemangini Panigrahi' case (supra), this Court found that the same is identical to the facts involved in the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although she has no specific instruction in the matter, however on a careful examination of the impugned rejection order dated 25.04.2025 at Annexure-5, it appears that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by following F.D. Notification No.32745/F dated 23.07.2011 wherein at para-6, it has been categorically mentioned that if the deceased Government employee is survived by unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters who have attained the age of eighteen years, they are entitled to get pension. He further contended that in the present case, since the Petitioner became widow in the year 2009 i.e. after the death

of the Government employee 2005, she is not entitled to the family pension. On such ground, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned rejection order and contended before this Court that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the sides, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, this Court found that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned rejection order dated 25.04.2025, whereby her prayer for grant of family pension has been rejected, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

11. On perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition, it appears that the father of the Petitioner, who was admittedly a Government employee working as a Teacher, died on 16.01.2005 leaving behind his wife and the present Petitioner. After the death of the deceased Government employee, his wife was getting pension till her death in the year 2024. In the meantime, the Petitioner became widow on 20.08.2009. It further appears that after the Petitioner became widow, she became dependent on her widowed mother. After the death of the wife of the deceased Government employee, the Petitioner is not getting any family pension, as a result of which, she is suffering a lot

financially.

12. This Court further examined the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.30045 of 2024. On perusal of the said order at Annexure-7, it appears that the factual backgrounds of both cases are identical. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the dispute involved in the present writ petition does not require any separate adjudication and that the present writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 15.05.2025 at Annexure-7.

13. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 25.04.2025 at Annexure-5. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the case of the Petitioner has already been recommended by the Block Education Officer, Ulunda vide virtue of letter dated 10.03.2025 at Annexure-4, this Court remands the matter to the Opposite Party No.4-Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. While considering the case of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4 shall take into consideration the recommendation of the Opposite Party No.3-Block Education Officer, Ulunda at Annexure-4 as well as the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Hemangini Panigrahi' case (supra) and address the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and

reasoned order. Let the Opposite Party No.4 consider the grievance of the Petitioner as has been directed hereinabove within a period of eight weeks. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.4 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is further observed that while approaching the Opposite Party No.4 along with the certified copy of this order, it is open to the Petitioner to cite any other judgments in support of her contention.

14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis