Orissa High Court
WP(C)/16031/2015 of KUNI SAHARA Vs INDIAN BANK on 29 August 2026
of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16031 of 2015 CNR No. ODHC010126082015 Kuni Sahara ..... Petitioner Mr. J.K. Das, Advocate -versus- Indian Bank & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties None CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.08.2026 Order No. 09 1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 16031 of 2015
CNR No. ODHC010126082015
Kuni Sahara
.....
Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
Indian Bank & Ors.
.....
Opposite Parties
None
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
29.08.2026 Order No. 09
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. None appeared for the Opp. Party-Bank when the matter was called, in spite of due appearance.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the circumstances stated above, Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the case, call for records and be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties as to why; A) The order rejecting the petitioner's claim at Annexure- 2 shall not be quashed, B) Any other direction/order shall not be given to afford complete relief to the petitioner including payment of interest from the date of petitioner's entitlement to Family Pension as well as exemplary cost,
In the event the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient case the Rule be made absolute, And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”
4. It is contended that vide the impugned order dtd.18.01.2011 under Annexure-2, Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of family pension was rejected on the ground that Petitioner has made the required deposit beyond the stipulated date i.e.20.11.2010.
4.1. While assailing the impugned order dtd.18.01.2011, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner taking this Court to Annexure-3, contended that in letter dtd.06.01.2011 under Annexure-3, the Branch Manager while forwarding the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of family pension, clearly indicated that Petitioner made the deposit towards pension fund to the tune of Rs.86,019.57p. on 04.11.2010.
4.2. It is contended that since the Branch Manager of the Bank-Opp. Party No. 3 in his letter dtd.06.01.2011 under Annexure-3 clearly admits that, Petitioner made the deposit prior to the cut-off date on 04.11.2010, Opp. Party No. 2 on the ground that such deposit has been made beyond the cut-off date i.e.20.11.2010, could not have rejected the Petitioner’s claim, so rejected vide Annexure-2. It is accordingly contended that since it is not disputed by the Branch Manager-Opp. Party No. 3 that Petitioner had made the deposit before the cut-off date, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of family pension was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.18.01.2011 under Annexure-2 requires interference of this Court.
5. Even though no appearance is there on behalf of the Opp. Party- Bank, but this Court taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit, found that Petitioner’s claim was rejected by Opp. Party No. 2 on the ground that the deposit as required has not been made by the Petitioner by the cut-off date i.e.20.11.2010. But while doing so, Annexure-3 has not been taken into consideration.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, considering the submission made and the pleadings available in the record, this Court finds that vide letter dtd.06.01.2011 under Annexure-3, Opp. Party No. 3 clearly admitted that Petitioner had made the deposit on 04.11.2010 towards pension fund. On the face of such letter issued under Annexure-3 dtd.06.01.2011, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected vide order dtd.18.01.2011 under Annexure-2 by Opp. Party No. 1 on the ground that Petitioner has not made the deposit by the cut-off date i.e.20.11.2010.
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing Annexure-2, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take prompt and effective step for sanction and disbursal of family pension in favour of the Petitioner from the date of her eligibility as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 10:55:35 Signature Not Verified