Back
1984 Supreme(Ori) 273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Mohapatra, R.C. Patnaik, JJ.
SMT. H.N. BHAVANASI - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 1599 of 1984
Decided On : 23-11-1984
K.N. Jena, for the Appellant; R.K. Patra, Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent
The State Government is liable to pay pension to retired employees in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed in the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977.
Headnote:
PENSION - ORISSA PENSION RULES, 1977 - DELAY IN PAYMENT - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - CONSOLIDATED SUM AWARDED TO WIDOW OF DECEASED PENSIONER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, widow of a deceased ministerial servant under Madras Presidency, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for arrear salary, arrear pension, and security deposit of her deceased husband outstanding with the State Government. She also claimed pension under the Family Pension Scheme as the widow of the deceased. The State Government resisted the claim, stating that the deceased retired prior to the introduction of the Scheme and that he owed the Government dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government had not followed the rules and procedures for granting pension to retired employees. It also found that the State Government had tolerated the deceased's unauthorized occupation of a Government quarters for about nine years and had failed to execute the decree obtained against him for damages.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrear salary, arrear pension, and security deposit of her deceased husband outstanding with the State Government. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pension under the Family Pension Scheme as the widow of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government was liable to pay the petitioner a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,000/- in the interest of justice, taking into account the liabilities and the conduct of both parties. The court also directed the State Government to certify to the Court under Order 21, Rule 2(1), C. P. C., that the decree obtained against the deceased had been satisfied.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the State Government was directed to pay the petitioner a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,000/- by 31st January 1985. No order was made as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for arrear salary, arrear pension and security deposit of the deceased husband of the petitioner outstanding with the State Government. Petitioner has also claimed pension under the Family Pension Scheme as widow of late A. D. Bhavanasi who expired on 10.10. 1968.
2. Late Bhavanasi was a ministerial servant under Madras Presidency. On formation of the Province of Orissa on 1.4.1935, he became an employee under the Provincial Government of Orissa. While continuing as such he retired on superannuation on 13.3.1957. Thereafter he was re-employed till 13.6.1959. While in service he was occupying a Government quarters on rent. After retirement he continued to occupy the same till his death and since then widow of late A. D. Bhavanasi and his legal representatives occupied the same. Late Bhavanasi filed a suit claiming to be the owner of the house which he lost. The State Government filed a suit for recovery of damages for illegal occupation of the quarters in 1968 in which Rs. 50/-per month was fixed as damages beginning from 13.6.1969.
3. Late Bhavanasi was to get Rs. 4,613. 48 paise, towards his arrear pay. He was also entitled to get Rs. 6,714/- towards the pensionary dues. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 11, 327. 48 paise. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not entitled to family pension since late Bhavanasi retired much prior to the introduction of the Scheme. So far as security deposit, it was stated that late Bhabanasi has to pay Government dues for which the security was not refunded. As regards the pension, it was stated that late Bhavanasi dragged the State Government to litigation for which his pension was also liable to be reduced. Late Bhavanasi during his life time did not submit the pension papers. It was claimed in the counter affidavit that the State Government was entitled to recover Rs. 12,809/- from late Bhavanasi and his legal representatives including the petitioner and adjusting the amounts payable to him a sum of Rs. 1,431. 52 paise was yet to be recovered. It may be stated that the refund of Rs. 300/-, the security amount, has not been taken into consideration which would reduce the claim of the State Government to Rs. 1,181. 52 paise. In Commerce and Transport (Ports) Dipartment letter No. 2662/PO. dated 22. 7. 1980, the petitioner was requested to give her willingness for setting off the dues against the calculated dues of pension. She gave a reply in her letter dated 28. 7.1980 expressing her willingness for the same subject to the condition that Government would intimate her the total amount due to Government and the amount she is expected to get from the Government after deducting the amount payable by late Bhavanasi. As it was found that the Government dues were more than the dues payable to late Bhavanasi, no intimation was given to her.
4. This case reveals how the officers of the State Government take the law to their own hands without taking recourse to the remedy available in law.
5. On 13. 3. 1957, when late Bhavanasi retired, the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and various executive orders and officers memoranda were applicable for grant of pension to the retired employees. Article 916 provides that the preparation of service statement and the verification of service shall be under-taken by the Head of the Office one year before the date on which an officer is due to retire on superannuation or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier and shall not be delayed till the officer has actually submitted the formal application for pension. After completing the verification provided in Article 915 the Head of the Office is to draw up the application in Form 25. Article 917 (a) provided ;'This should be done irrespective of the fact whether a formal application for pension has been received from the offi
