IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.400 of 2025 Gitanjali Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Pradhan, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.07.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. On the oral prayer made by Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the Petitioner, he is permitted to implead Regional Provident Fund Commission as Opp. Party No.3 in Court. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue notice to the Opp. Parties and call for records and upon hearing the parties to quash order dated 12.04.2021 under Annexure-1 with further direction to Opp. Party No.2 to include the name of the petitioner in the PPO OR/BBS/151716 for her and to sanction and release pensionary benefits forthwith for her survival to secure ends of justice. p. 2 p. 2 And pass such other order (s), direction(s) as would be deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 5. It is contended that even though Petitioner is the daughter of the original pensioner namely Kushasan Mohanty but after the death of the original pensioner, Petitioner though being the disabled daughter of the deceased-Pensioner, is entitled to continue with the benefit with inclusion of her name in the PPO, but such prayer of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dated 12.04.2021 under Annexure-1. 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner is the disabled daughter of the original pensioner, her claim has been rejected without proper appreciation. It is accordingly contended that order under Annexure-1 requires interference of this Court. 6. Basing on the instruction, learned counsel appearing for the organization contended that since the deceased-Pensioner while submitting the family details has not included the name of the Petitioner, the prayer of the Petitioner to include her name in the PPO was rejected vide order under Annexure-1. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that since the deceased-Pensioner never included the name of the Petitioner in the family details so submitted by him in his service career and even at the time of getting the benefit of pension, no illegality or irregularity can be found on the part of the Opp. Party, while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim vide order under Annexure-1. p. 3 p. 3 6.2. However, if Petitioner will make a fresh application by enclosing all the relevant documents in support of her status as the disabled daughter of the deceased-Pensioner as provided under Para 16(3)(e) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS), 1995, Petitioner’s claim will be reconsidered. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also fairly contended that Petitioner will make a fresh claim in terms of Para 16(3)(e) of EPS, 1995. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned under Annexure-1, permits the Petitioner to make a proper application in terms of the provisions contained under Para 16 (3)(e) of the EPS, 1995. 9. It is observed that if any such application is moved within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 3 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 be communicated to the Petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti