IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37254 of 2023 Ramesh Chandra Panda …. Petitioner Mr. N.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Roy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 12.05.2026 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice of RULE NISI to the 0pp. Parties in directing them for filing show cause and in case, the 0pp. Parties fail to file any show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute by issue of appropriate writ in quashing Annexures - 4 & 5 and further directing the Opp. Party Authorities to release full pensionary benefits to the Petitioner along with his retirement dues such as Gratuity and Leave Salary; And may pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. It is contended that claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of pension on the face of his superannuation on 31.05.2021, was rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 inter alia on the ground that O.A. No.955 of 1988 and O.A. No.3936(C) of 2000, are yet to be disposed of after transfer to this Court. 4.1. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the meantime both the original applications in O.A. No.955 of 1988 and O.A. No.3936(C) of 2000, have been disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2026 of this Court, and vide order dated 02.05.2013 of the Tribunal. 4.2. It is accordingly contended that since claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits, was rejected only on the ground of pendency of O.A. No.955 of 1988 and O.A. No.3936(C) of 2000 and both the original applications in the meantime, have been disposed of vide order dtd.30.03.2026 and 02.05.2013, the ground on which claim of the deceased employee was rejected, requires a fresh consideration. 4.3. It is also contended that provisional pension sanctioned in favour of the deceased employee was also withheld vide order dated 05.09.2023 under Annexure- 5, after rejecting the claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits vide order dated 08.08.2023 under Annexure-4. 4.4. It is also contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court while disposing W.P.C(OA) No.955 of 1988 vide order dated 30.03.2026, the ground on which claim of the deceased employee has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 under Annexure-4, is no more sustainable. 4.5. It is also contended that this Court in its order dated 30.03.2026 in W.P.C(OA) No.955 of 1988, allowed the prayer so made in the Writ Petition and held the deceased employee eligible and entitled to get all service benefits as due and admissible and direction has been issued to release the same in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased employee, namely Petitioner No.1(a) to 1(c). 4.6. It is accordingly contended that in view of the disposal of the both the original applications, one by this Court and the other by the Tribunal, the ground on which claim of the deceased employee was rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 under Annexure-4 and consequential order passed on 05.09.2023 under Annexure-5, requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on being confronted with the order passed in both the original applications one by this Court and the other by the Tribunal, also fairly contended that the matter requires a fresh consideration by Opp. Party No.2. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submission made and taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.C(OA) No.955 of 1988 on 30.03.2026 and by the Tribunal on 02.05.2013 in O.A. No.3936(C) of 2000, this Court is of the view that the ground on which claim of the deceased employee was rejected vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 under Annexure-4 and consequential order passed on 05.09.2023 under Annexure-5, are no more sustainable in the eye of law. 6.1. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dated 08.08.2023 and 05.09.2023 under Annexure-4 and 5, remits the matter to Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits and so also release of provisional family pension in favour of wife of the deceased employee so substituted as Petitioner No.1(a) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner No.1(a) is permitted to provide certified copy of this order along with the order passed on 30.03.2026 in W.P.C(OA) No.955 of 1988 as well as order dated 02.05.2013 in O.A. No.3936(C) of 2000 before Opp. Party No.2 for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev