SUJATA MOHANTY Vs. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the communication dated 11.03.2019 at Annexure-7, whereby the Comptroller of Finance, Berhampur University has rejected the claim of the petitioner for family pension, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to sanction and disburse family pension in her favour within a stipulated period.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is the daughter of late Sarada Prasad Mohanty, who was working as Professor in the department of Physics under Berhampur University and retired from service on 31.07.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. Though the petitioner was married, her marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act on 12.05.1995 by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No.236 of 1998. As a consequence thereof, she stayed with her parents and was fully dependent on them. While she was so continuing, her mother, Renuka Mohanty and wife of late Sarada Prasad Mohanty expired on 28.08.2010. Accordingly, her father submitted an application for change of nomination in favour of the petitioner for acceptance as nominee to receive family pension, whenever it would have become due and such proposal was considered and duly accepted by the authority vide Annexure-2 dated 01.07.2015. Consequentially, opposite party no.1 communicated the same to the Comptroller of Finance, Berhampur University stating that pursuant to Pension Amendment, 2011 by the Government of Odisha O.M. No.32745/F dated 23.07.2011, the Vice-Chancellor allowed the petitioner, the divorced daughter of late Sarada Prasad Mohanty, to be the next recipient of family pension as nominated by him.

(3.) Mr. C.R. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the reasons assigned for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension pursuant to Annexure-7 dated 11.03.2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is contended that the petitioner has produced the income certificate issued by the competent authority showing her annual income of Rs.40,000/- from agricultural land, which is Rs.3,333/-per month. As per Rule 56(5) (e) of Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, a divorced daughter having income less than Rs.4,440/- per month is eligible to receive family pension. Thereby, there is non-consideration of the provisions of law. Consequentially, the order impugned has been passed without application of mind and the same should be quashed. It is further contended that when the Government intends to extend the benefit of family pension in a specific manner and has fixed the criteria for the same, which the University has also accepted, the authorities have no option to change the criteria either to extend or curtail the benefit as per their sweet will. It is further contended that pension is a statutory right and also is a property. By rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for family pension on erroneous assumption of law is violative of Article-21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for quashing the order impugned dated 11.03.2019 under Annexure-7 issued by opposite party no.3 and further seeks direction to the opposite parties to extend the benefit of family pension as due admissible to her.