MUTURIMANI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lackadaisical attitude exhibited by the opposite parties in not granting family pension and rejecting the representation of the petitioner on jejune grounds, compels the petitioner to approach the portals of this Court as a last resort.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that her husband Judhistira Nayak was a primary school teacher. He died on 17.7.1984 while in service leaving behind the petitioner, his sons and daughters and a concubine. In consonance with Rule 8(b)(2) of the Orissa Pension Rules as amended by notification dated 18.10.2001, the family of the pensioner is eligible to receive pension. Several representations filed by the petitioner ended in fiasco. Thereafter, she filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3601 of 2003 before this Court. By order dated 24.3.2004, the said writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the District Inspector of Schools, Basta, opposite party No. 3, within two weeks enclosing all the documents. It was observed that if the opposite party No. 3 is satisfied that the petitioner entitled to get family pension, necessary order will be passed in favour of the petitioner for sanction of family pension. After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation before opposite party No. 3 and file necessary documents. Thereafter, opposite party No. 3 by letter dated 4.9.2001 submitted the pension papers to the Controller of Accounts, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No. 4. But then the opposite party No. 4 by letter dated 27.3.2002 returned the service book of the husband of the petitioner for its re -submission after examining the issue. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 sent a copy of the said letter dated 19.7.2002 to the Block Development Officer, Baliapal requesting him to dispose of the same in the light of the Government G.O dated 18.10.2001. On 7.10.2002, the Block Development Officer, Baliapal sent a letter to the opposite party No. 3 stating therein that as the husband of the petitioner expired while working as primary school teacher on 17.7.1984, the entitlement of family pension to the deceased wife be determined in the light of the Government of Orissa in the School and Mass Education Department notification dated 18.10.2001. The service book of the husband of the petitioner was returned for compliance and re -submission. Further case of the petitioner is that till date opposite parties have not granted family pension to the petitioner.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department for the opposite parties.