Odisha High Court upholds conviction of Congress MLA in corruption case
It’s pertinent to note here that a special vigilance court had sentenced the lawmaker a three-year rigorous imprisonment term.
The Orissa High Court has directed the State Government to extend family pension benefits to an 86-year-old widow whose school teacher husband died almost 50 years back.
Subashini Patnaik had moved the High Court in 2003 seeking direction from the court regarding family pension to her. Her husband – Sarat Chandra Patnaik – joined as an Assistant Teacher in Loknath Middle English School, Mahagab on 1 August 1948, which is an Aided Educational Institution.
Patnaik, while posted in the school, died on 8 January, 1974.
Advertisement
However, the government authorities had rejected her plea for family pension as the benefit of pension was made available to Aided Primary School Teachers from 1 April 1982. Further, the benefit of family pension to the family of the teachers was introduced from 1 September 1988.
“The authorities are directed to pass necessary orders extending the benefit of family pension to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, if there is no other legal impediment. Having regard to the fact the petitioner is an old lady, necessary orders shall be passed as directed within a period of four weeks,” the single bench judge Justice Sashikanta Mishra ruled in an order.
The stand of the opposite parties is that the husband of the petitioner died much prior to coming into force of the 1981 Rules, whereas the said Rules are applicable only to the employees of Aided Educational Institutions under the Direct Payment Scheme receiving full grant-in-aid and retiring on or after 1 April 1982.
Had the husband of the petitioner not died, he would have superannuated in April, 1986, which is after 1 April 1982. As such, he would have been eligible to receive pension as per 1981 Rules. In such view of the matter, the petitioner being his widow cannot be deprived of family pension.
“In the instant case there is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner was not a pensioner as on the date of his death and he died much before, i.e. on 01.09.1988. However, the question is, would he have been eligible to receive pension had he lived,” the court ordered.
Advertisement
