JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. – The appellant is the wife of deceased Krushna Chandra Bahinipati, who died on 06.01.2007 and made her claim for pension from the employer-Orissa Power Transmission Corporation (hereinafter called as "Corporation") by filing an application along with death certificate and legal heir certificate issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar in Misc. Certificate Case No.280/09. The pension amount was not determined by the respondents and extended to the appellant herein for the reasons that the succession certificate is required to be produced placing reliance upon Rule-52 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") in relation to gratuity in case of death/retirement in the absence of family members or nomination. In the legal heir certificate, the names of the family members are clearly mentioned, namely, the appellant herein, one married daughter-Mamata Bahinipati and three major sons, namely, Malaya Kumar Bahinipati, Mihir Kumar Bahinipati and Priyadarshi Bahinipati. There being no order for grant of family pension under the Rule which is applicable under the Rule-56 of the Rules referred to supra, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.18626 of 2011 seeking a direction to the opp.parties for release of the family pension and arrears. Annexure-6 is the letter dated 19.01.2011 issued to the appellant by the respondent No.3-Deputy Manager (HRD) Pension, OPTCL, Bhubaneswar, the operative portion of which has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in order dated 26.7.2011. The said letter states that the appellant should produce the succession certificate issued by the competent civil Court in favour of the appellant-wife of late K.C. Bahinipati, the ex-Superintendent, Drawing, GRIDCO Headquarters Office, Bhubaneswar. The learned Single Judge has declined to quash the same by stating that the opp.party, vide Annexure-6, has asked the appellant herein to produce the succession certificate since some doubts have been created on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant in the mind of the competent authority to release the pension in her favour. Therefore, learned Single Judge declined to exercise the discretionary power and dismissed the writ petition against which the appellant filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to quash the letter under Annexure-6 issued by the opp.Party No.3 to produce the succession certificate.

2. Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of learned Single Judge is erroneous in upholding the letter issued by the respondent No.3 insisting upon the appellant to produce succession certificate, which is contrary to Rule 3(d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 which provides for legal heir certificate for limited purposes such as drawal of pension, gratuity, arrears, salaries, provident fund, etc. In such disputed case involving claims to property or large amounts, the applicant may be advised to approach the civil Court and it was further submitted that Rule-56 of the Rules provides for family pension. Non-mentioning of the name of the appellant as family member in the nomination made for the purpose of getting gratuity amount under Rule-52 of the Rules in case of death of an employee, learned counsel submits that the said Rule regarding family pension has no application to the present case. Further, it is not disputed by some other persons that the appellant is not the legal wife of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos.3's insisting upon the appellant to produce succession certificate is contrary to the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. It is further contended that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge at the time of examining claim of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition at the stage of preliminary