MANU/SC/1668/2019

True Court CopyTM EnglishTrue Court CopyTM Odia

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9204 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16283 of 2017)

Decided On: 04.12.2019

Appellants: State of Odisha and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Manju Naik

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy

JUDGMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 14413 of 2016 whereunder the High Court of Orissa has dismissed the Appellants' challenge to the order dated 3.8.2015 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") under which the authorities were directed to consider sanction of invalid pension in favour of late Sagar Naik (husband of the Respondent) and thereafter settle family pension in favour of the applicant, under the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules - 1992 (hereafter referred to as "the Pension Rules").

3. The Respondent filed the OA No. 18(B)/2010 before the Tribunal praying for fixation of pay of late Sagar Naik and for disbursal of his accrued financial benefits with effect from 1.1.1996 until he was retired on 6.7.1996 on being mentally incapacitated. The applicant also prayed for sanction of family pension from the date of death of her husband i.e. 24.7.1996.

4. The applicant projected before the Tribunal that her husband on being found incapacitated was made to retire from service on 6.7.1996 and he died soon thereafter on 24.7.1996 and therefore, the widow is entitled to family pension. She also tried to make out a case for grant of invalid pension in favour of her late husband.

5. Opposing the prayers, the Government Advocate on behalf of the State contended before the Tribunal that the applicant's husband had not rendered the qualifying period of service so as to make him eligible for pension. Opposing the claim for invalid pension for the deceased husband, the Appellants contended that Rule 39 of the Pension Rules governing invalid pension has to be read together with Rule 47 which specifies the qualifying service of ten years for grant of pension and accordingly it was argued that the applicant is disentitled to any relief from the Tribunal.

6. Notwithstanding the State's above contention, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's husband is entitled to invalid pension Under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules and accordingly, the authorities were directed to sanction the invalid pension for the applicant's husband and after his death, to settle the family pension for the applicant, after regularizing the services of the deceased employee.

7. The above decision was challenged by the Appellants through W.P.(C) No. 14413/2015 where the State projected that Rule 39 has to be read jointly with Rule 47 of the Pension Rules and if Rules are applied as it should be, conjointly, the deceased government employee is ineligible for invalid pension. However, without adverting to the specific contention raised by the Appellants, the High Court observed that a reasoned order was passed by the Tribunal declaring entitlement for the invalid pension and accordingly the Tribunal's impugned order was left undisturbed and the writ petition came to be dismissed.

8. Representing the State ........