ORDER

B.K.DASH, Acting Chairman - The applicant is the widow of late Anadi Charan Nayak, who died on 23.11.1958 while in service. She has claimed sanction of family pension in accordance with Rule 56 of he OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that her husband Anadi Charan Nayak, was appointed as a Primary School Teacher with effect from 24.08.1946 and died on 23.11.1958. The husband of the applicant was employed under the Ex-state of Keonjhar and his services were taken over by the State of Odisha with effect from 01.01.1948. The service of late husband of the applicant was confirmed with effect from 01.06.1949. As on the date of his death, he had completed more than 12 years of service and as such he was entitled for pension and the applicant being his widow is entitled to family pension with effect from 13.12.1977 as per Resolution No.44348 dtd. 09.09.1986.

3. The Respondent No.3, District Inspector of Schools, filed counter admitting that the late husband of the applicant was working in a Government Chatasali at Daughat, which was subsequently established as Primary School with effect from 24.08.1946. The husband of the applicant died on 23.11.1958. The claim of the applicant for family pension is not entertainable as she has approached the Tribunal 50 years after the death of her husband. It is averred that the applicant has failed to produce any documents to show that her husband was an Ex-state employee. No document is also available in his office to support the claim of the applicant, for which she is not entitled to the relief claimed for.

It may be noted that during course of hearing, the applicant was directed to produce documents showing that her (the applicant’s) husband was an Ex-state employee and is entitled for pension, but no document could be produced. However, judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.181/1987 and the letter of Director of Public Instruction dtd. 30.1.1948 were filed to support her contention.

4. Considering the rival contention, the question that requires consideration is whether the late husband of the applicant was an Ex-state employee and after merger of the State with effect from 01.01.1948, he was treated as a Government employee and is entitled to benefits as has been extended to other Government employees.

5. It is not disputed that the applicant was working in a Chatasali at Daughat which was subsequently established as a Primary School with effect from 24.08.1946 and the husband of the applicant became a regular Primary School Teacher from the said date. He served as a teacher in the primary school till his death on 23.11.1958. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal earlier in O.A. No.181/1987 and batch of cases have already adjudicated the issue with to the regard claim of Ex-state employee and therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of a Government employee.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, S&ME submitted that as the applicant has failed to produce any document showing that he was an Ex-state employee in order to get benefit of a Government employee, he is not entitled to any such benefits. He has also challenged the claim of the applicant which he has raised after lapse of 50 years.

7. So far as question of limitation and delay is concerned, it is profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.R. Mastan Bee Vrs. General Manager South Central Railway and Another, reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 184, where the Hon’ble Court considered the plight of a helpless illiterate widow and observed as follows :-

xx xx xx

“6. We notice that the applicant’s husband was working as a gang man who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension to enforce her right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband’s em