AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Narasingh, J
1.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. Sarangi learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocates and Mr. A. Tripathy, for the Opposite Parties.
An affidavit in compliance of the order dated 12.09.2022 submitted in Court is taken on record. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the petitioner has received Rs.16,01,846/-towards arrear Provisional Family Pension.
It is needless to state that such affidavit is only in partial compliance and the emoluments so far as entitlement of the petitioner is concerned the same are yet to be worked out. Learned counsel for the State citing unavoidable procedural formalities, prays for further time.
Taking into account that in the meanwhile amount as aforesaid has been paid towards Provisional Family Pension and noting the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the State that they will continue to pay current family pension, this Court is persuaded to call this matter on 14.11.2022 for further compliance.
Before parting for the day, this Court places on record its appreciation for the efforts made by the learned State counsel Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Diptesh Kumar Pattnayak, IPS, CMD of OSRTC for their empathy in ensuring that at least the dues to which the pensioner was entitled since long were paid in part.
In the factual matrix of the case at hand this Court is impelled to convey through the learned senior counsel its deep regret to the petitioner that it took her so long to get her legitimate dues notwithstanding filing the contempt petition in 2013, due to docket explosion.
This Court wants to reassure the petitioner that it is alive to her plight and all other similarly circumstanced and is always prepared to walk that extra mile to ensure that the voice of the ones who are disadvantaged, at the lowest rung is heard and it would be the endeavour of this Court to ensure that no pensioner is left in the lurch and that the golden words of the Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of D.S. Nakara that “Pension is not a bounty” does not become dead letters.
In this regard this Court seeks the active cooperation of the State to formulate such policy so that, where entitlement of pension is not in question, it can be ensured that the pensioner would at least not be deprived of provisional pension which would allow such pensioner to keep body and soul together and when someone fights for legitimate entitlement of pension such pensioner shall not be treated like a “Oliver Twist asking for more”.
Further orders regarding stream lining the process of ensuring for payment of provisional pension to the litigating pensioners shall be passed on the next date taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the State.
A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate.
..................................................