State Of Odisha And Others vs Pradipta Kumar Sahoo And Others Vs

Arindam Sinha, ACJ

Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, impugned is order dated 5th September, 2023 made by the learned single Judge. He relies on our judgment dated 20th February, in WA no.2917 of 2023 (State of Odisha and others v. Ganga Rani Behera) to submit, the appeal be allowed accordingly.

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents, who are legal representatives of the deceased employee. He draws attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 in impugned order to submit, State had conceded and, therefore, Ganga Rani Behera (supra) is not applicable.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 from impugned order dated 5th September, 2023 is reproduced below.

“5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A though supported the impugned order but fairly contended that the case of the Petitioners be considered in the light of the decision in the case of Subarna Dibya and order dated 18.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.12721/2020.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and in view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash the order dt.11.12.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. party No.2 to take consequential action for sanction of family pension in favour of the Petitioners as original writ-petitioners expired in the meantime as due and admissible from the date of entitlement and release the same along with arrear family pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.”

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Mohanty’s contention is correct inasmuch as State had conceded that it would consider claim of respondents in light of decision, inter alia, in the case of Subarna Dibya v. State of Orissa) reported in 2005(I) OLR 168. However State is also correct in contending the appeal is covered by our judgment in Ganga Rani Behera (supra). Reproduced below is paragraph 6 from the judgment.

“6. We have perused order dated 1st February, 2016 impugned in the writ petition. The authority did not follow the procedure given in para-19 of Subarna Dibya (supra), to reject the claim for family pension. Since appellant is relying on Subarna Dibya (supra) it is required and obliged to follow the procedure given in above extracted and reproduced passage from paragraph-19. Clear view, we see, was that the rules did not permit but the authority is required to consider as per the reproduced above passage in paragraph-19. As appellant (State) is relying on Subarna Dibya (supra) it is sufficient for us to set aside impugned in the writ petition order dated 1st February, 2016 and restore the claim, for consideration in line with above reproduced passage in paragraph-19 of Subarna Dibya (supra). Impugned judgment is modified to above extent. The decision on the restored claim is to be made within four months of communication, as informed to respondent, who Mr. Udgata says, is above 80 years of age.”

In Ganga Rani Behera (supra) rejection of claim of the legal representatives was set aside. The claim was restored for decision to be made on holding that State was obliged to follow the procedure given in paragraph-19 of Subarna Dibya (supra). In this case the rejection order stood set aside by the writ petition with direction for State to sanction. In the circumstances State is to consider, as conceded by it and reflected in impugned order, as per direction in Ganga Rani Behera (supra).

Impugned order is modified as above. The appeal is thus disposed of.

........………………………………….