SUBASINI@KANAKA MOHARANA v. STATE OF ODISHA

2. The brief background facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition in a nutshell are that the husband of the Petitioner namely, Prafulla Chandra Moharana was serving as Driller under the Corporation and superannuated from service on 28.02.1999. After his retirement, he was drawing pension under PPO No.305774.

The Petitioner is the legal married wife of Prafulla Chandra Moharana and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1963. During the subsistence of their marriage, her husband developed an illicit relationship with one Sarojini Rana. It was resisted by the Petitioner. She left the house of Mr. Moharana with her four children and took shelter in her parent's house.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which was allowed on 05.11.1997. Revision case was filed by her husband challenging the quantum of monthly maintenance. The Petitioner appeared in the said Revision Case and filed her objection. Thereafter, her husband filed Original Suit No.704 of 1999 for divorce against the Petitioner. In the said proceeding, the Petitioner contested. During pendency of the said suit for divorce, the husband of the Petitioner died on 27.12.2001. Thereafter, the Petitioner

2

obtained necessary documents and took steps for grant of family pension in her favour. It came to her knowledge that the same has already been ordered to be disbursed in favour of one Sarojini Moharana. Finding no other way, the Petitioner filed C.S. No.121 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore, for declaration that she is entitled to get family pension and prayed for permanent injunction against the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Balasore Branch, Balasore (Opposite Party No.7) restraining it from disbursing the family pension in favour of Sarojini Moharana. The learned Judge (Senior Division), Balasore, vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2012 and 07.04.2012 respectively, declared that the Petitioner is entitled to get family pension of her deceased husband. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.121 of 2002, Sarojini Moharana preferred RFA No.64 of 2012 before the District Judge, Balasore. Vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013 and 01.05.2013, the impugned judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.121 of 2012 were confirmed and the Appeal was dismissed.

Pursuant to the said judgment and decree of both the Courts, the Petitioner approached the Corporation for

3

disbursement of family pension in her favour. Being so approached, the Director of the Corporation, vide letter dated 15.04.2014, wrote to the Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, requesting therein to consider the case of the Petitioner for payment of family pension, enclosing thereto all the relevant documents, including a photo copy of PPO No.305774.

3. When the matter stood thus, Sarojini Moharana preferred RSA No.183 of 2013 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree of both the Courts, as detailed above.

4. This Court, vide judgment dated 30.06.2015, dismissed the said Appeal and held that the present Petitioner, being the married wife of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana, is entitled to get the family pension in accordance with the provision of Rule 56 of Orissa Civil Service Pension Rules, 1992, shortly, Pension Rules, 1992. The competent Authority was called upon to act accordingly in the matter of disbursement of family pension afresh in accordance with provision of Rule 56 of the Pension Rules, 1992. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2), enclosing thereto a copy of the judgment passed in RSA No.183 of 2013. On being so approached, the Opposite Party No.2, vide

4

letter dated 15.10.2015, directed the Treasury Officer, Balasore (Opposite Party No.6) to return PPO No.305774 of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana at the earliest after duly recording the last payment thereof for necessary action at his end. Pursuant to the said letter dated 15.10.2015, the Opposite Party No.6, vide letter dated 02.12.2015, directed the Opposite Party No.7 to return the disburser's portion of PPO No.305774 of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana to the office of the District Treasury Officer, Balasore recording Last Payment certificate for onward transmission of the same to the A.G. (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. It has been alleged in the Writ Petition that despite passing order in favour of the Petitioner by this Court, though she approached the Opposite Party No.2, so also Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5-Corporation for disbursement of family pension of her late husband, but deliberately the said Opposite Parties are not disbursing the same in favour of the Petitioner.

It has further been pleaded that she is a widow having four children, who has no source of income and nobody behind her to support her family. It is the case of the Petitioner that instead of expediting the process of disbursement of family pension, the Opposite Parties are avoiding to do so, as held by

5

this Court in RSA No.183 of 2013. Such action of the Opposite Parties in not disbursing pension in favour of the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to direct the Opposite Parties to disburse the family pension in favour of Petitioner.

5. On being noticed, except Opposite Party No.7, all the Opposite Parties filed their respective Counter Affidavits acknowledging the claim of the Petitioner for her entitlement to get family pension.

6. As is revealed from the documents annexed to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5- Corporation, vide letter dated 31.03.2014, the Director of Lift Irrigation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, forwarded all the forms and documents to the Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, for sanction of family pension in favour of the Petitioner and also made further communication in the said regard on 25.02.2016, enclosing the required documents of OCS (Pension) Form-15 of the Petitioner.

7. The documents appended to the Counter Affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and 6 well demonstrate that the Senior Accounts Officer, O/o the Principal Accountant General (A & E) Odisha, Bhubaneswar wrote to the Treasury

6

Officer, District Treasury, Balasore to return the Pension Payment Order of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana, bearing PPO/F.O. No.305774 recording the last payment therein for necessary action at his end and to do the same on priority basis. It is further revealed from the communication dated 02.12.2015 made by the District Treasury Officer, Balasore, addressed to the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Balasore, referring to the communication made by the Senior Accounts Officer, O/o the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, a communication was made to the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Balasore requesting therein to return the PPO No.305774 of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana recording Last Payment Certificate for onward transmission of the same to the A.G.(O), Bhubaneswar. However, instead of returning the PPO, the Senior Manager, United Bank of India, vide letter dated 11.12.2015 wrote to the Treasury Officer, Balasore that they do not have such pensioner and no papers now.

8. On getting such communication from the Officer of the Bank, again the District Treasury Officer, Balasore, vide letter dated 22.01.2016 wrote to the United Bank of India, Balasore Branch, Balasore, indicating therein as follows:

7

" With reference subject cited above, I am to inform you that the disburser's portion P.P.O. No.305774 of Late Prafulla Chandra Maharana was issued vide this office letter No.3776, dt. 22.07.2000, which had been received in your office. But now you have intimated to this office that you have no such pension paper.

It is therefore, requested to intimate whether pensioner Late Prafulla Chandra Maharana was drawing pension earlier or not. If same had been drawn reasons for non-availability such P.P.O. may be clarified for taking further action at this end."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. It is further revealed from the communication dated 22.08.2016 made by the District Treasury Officer, Balasore, addressed to the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar that a detailed communication was made, which reads as follows:

"With reference to the letter on the subject cited above I am to state that as per your instruction contained in aforesaid letter to return the both laves of PPO no.305774 of Late Prafulla Chandra Moharana, correspondence had been made vide this office letter no.5138 dt. 02.12.2015 (copy enclosed) to the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Balasore to return the said PPO from where Late Prafulla Chandra Moharana used to draw his pension since 2000 onwards. But in reply by the concerned Bank authority vide letter no.2003/15 dt. 11.12.2015 stated that they have no such pensioner and no papers available with them (copy enclosed). Again, reminder was issued vide this office letter no.333 dt. 22.1.2016 indicating relevant letter no.3776 dt. 22.07.2000 (copy enclosed) wherein the said P.P.O. were transferred and received by concerned bank authority.

8

Subsequently, further remainder was also issued vide this office letter no.3037 dt.18.08.2016 (copy enclosed) to return back the said PPO as it relates to court matter. But it is regretted to say that despite issue of number of reminders to that effect neither any reply relating to the matter of Late Prafulla Chandra Moharana nor return the said PPO has yet been received from the concerned Bank authority by the undersigned till date.

This is for favour of kind information and necessary action.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

District Treasury Officer,

Balasore"

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Since disbursement of the family pension of the Petitioner is solely dependent on the want of "Last Payment Certificate" to be furnished by the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Balasore, so also return of PPO No.305774 of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana, as communicated vide letters dated 02.12.2015 and 22.01.2016, as Annexures B/3 and D/3 respectively, on being asked, Mrs. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.7-Bank, made a submission on 12.09.2022 that since the United Bank of India has been merged with Punjab National Bank, she may be given some time to take instruction in order to ascertain as to availability of Pension Payment Order (PPO) of late Prafulla Chandra

9

Moharana for which, vide Order dated 12.09.2022, three weeks' time was granted for obtaining necessary instruction in the said regard. On 13.10.2022, two weeks further time was granted for compliance of the Order dated 12.09.2022. Again, by Order dated 01.11.2022, further one week time was granted to the learned Counsel for the Bank, as a last chance, for compliance of the Order dated 12.09.2022.

11. Because of non-compliance of the said order, this Court, vide Order dated 07.12.2022, directed the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Balasore Branch, Balasore to remain physically present before this Court on 19.12.2022 with all relevant documents, as was being asked for by the District Treasury Officer, Balasore (Opposite Party No.6) vide letters dated 02.12.2015 and 22.01.2016.

12. Being so directed, the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank remained present physically before this Court and submitted that he has been recently posted at the said Branch and despite trying his best, he was unable to trace out PPO of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana. However, a submission was made by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.7-Bank to direct the Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) to supply photocopy of the said PPO to the

10

Opposite Party No.7-Bank enabling it to open an account based on the information/documents and to do further needful to give family pension to the Petitioner. Accordingly, a direction was given to serve a copy of the Writ Petition with Annexures and Counter Affidavits filed by the State, so also Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5-Corporation on Mr. S.K. Das, learned Counsel, who usually appears for the Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, enabling him to take instruction in the said regard and furnish a copy of PPO No.305774 of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana. Pursuant to said Order dated 19.12.2022, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed photo copy of letter dated 09.01.2023 of the Assistant Accounts Officer, O/o the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, addressed to the Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Balasore, vide which a request has been made to provide 'Last Payment Certificate' pertaining to PPO No.305774 immediately enabling O/o the Principal Accountant General (A & E) to take steps for authorization of family pension in favour of Subasini @ Kanaka Moharana.

In view of the said letter dated 09.01.2023, so also submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Principal Accountant General (A & E), the learned Counsel for

11

the State (Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 & 6) was directed to take instruction and file the Last Payment Certificate for PPO No.305774 in form of an Affidavit. On being so directed, a further Affidavit was filed by the State-Opposite Party Nos.1, 3 and 6 on 06.02.2023 indicating therein that the Last Payment Certificate with regard to PPO No.305774 is to be issued by the Pension Disbursing Officer and the same is not within the purview of Treasury Officer, as the pension was being paid through the Opposite Party No.7-Bank.

In addition to such further Affidavit, the learned Counsel for the State submitted that since the Petitioner's husband was drawing pension from Opposite Party No.7-Bank, it is obligatory on the part of the Bank to return the concerned PPO to the Accountant General enabling the O/o the Accountant General to issue new family pension order in favour of the Petitioner. The said submission made by the learned Counsel for the State was also reiterated by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and a Counter Affidavit was filed on 08.02.2023 to the said effect.

Based on the specific stand taken by the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 2 in their respective Counter Affidavits, both the learned Counsel for the said Opposite Parties made a

12

submission before this Court that no Counter Affidavit has yet been filed by the Opposite Party No.7-Bank in support of its stand. It was also submitted that no specific Affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party No.7-Bank to the effect that concerned PPO is lost or destroyed excepting mere oral submission made by the concerned Branch Manager that he is unable to trace out the said PPO.

It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 2 that unless an Affidavit in terms of Rule 280-B of Orissa Treasury Code is filed by the concerned Branch Manager, the Accountant General is unable to issue Pension Payment Order in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, a direction was given to the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.7-Bank vide Order dated 08.02.2023 to take instruction from her client and ensure furnishing of both halves of PPO with Last Payment Certificate to the Accountant General or to file an Affidavit as to whether the PPO is lost or destroyed by 27.02.2023. On being so directed, an Affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party No.7-Bank on 20.03.2023, contents of which are extracted below:

13

"AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF BRANCH MANAGER,

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.7)

I, Bijay Kumar Mohanty, aged about 38 years, son of Late Krushna Chandra Mohanty, at present working as Branch Manager at PNB, Balasore Branch, Vivekanand Marg, Pincode-756001, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows-:

1. That, I have gone through the contents of the Writ Petition and understood the same and begs to state as follows-:

2. That, in reference to PPO No.305774, even after due diligence and best efforts we are unable to trace out the PPO physically and also we are unable to trace out the record of payments in our system.

3. The Treasury Officer/AG may be directed on our kind request to provide further information and the last payment details of the above said PPO.

4. That the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and based on official records. Bijaya Kumar Mohanty

DEPONENT"

13. Hence, vide Order dated 20.03.2023, it was ordered that the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No.7-Bank shall remain present physically before this Court on 22.03.2023 to assist the Court for resolving the issue of furnishing PPO and LPC of late P.C. Moharana to the Authority concerned. However, instead of remaining physically present before this Court, the Branch Manager deputed the Law Officer of the Bank, as he was on leave because of ailments of his mother. The Law Officer of the Bank, being physically present before this Court on

14

22.03.2023, made an oral submission that after filing of the said Affidavit dated 01.03.2023 (filed on 02.03.2023), on physical verification of record, it was found that no pensioner namely, Prafulla Chandra Moharana or Sarojini Rana @ Moharana were allegedly getting pension/family pension through the Opposite Party No.7 Bank and hence, question of furnishing of PPO and LPC by the Opposite Party-Bank does not arise.

In view of such submission made by the concerned Officer of the Opposite Party No.7 Bank, the learned Counsel for the State Opposite Party drew attention of this Court to the averments made in further Affidavit dated 03.02.2023 filed by the Opposite Party No.6 (District Treasury Officer), so also document appended to the said Affidavit, which clearly indicates that the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Balasore received Pension Payment Order No.305774 on 02.08.2020, issued by the Treasury Officer, Balasore, along with other Pension Payment Orders, dated 21.07.2000, 22.07.2000 & 28.07.2000 making an endorsement to the said effect with seal and signature.

14. In view of such averments made in further Affidavit dated 03.02.2023, this Court, vide Order dated 22.03.2023, directed

15

the Opposite Party No.7-Bank to file its response to the said Additional Affidavit, so also Counter Affidavit dated 06.02.2023 filed by the Opposite Party No.2. Also, the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank was directed to contact the District Treasury Officer (Opposite Party No.6) to shutout the said dispute/differences with regard to receipt of Pension Payment Order of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana, so also last monthly family pension paid to Sarojini Moharana.

However, instead of filing its specific response to the said Additional Affidavit and Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.7-Bank filed its Counter Affidavit dated 18.04.2023 indicating therein that the Opposite Party No.7-Bank has diligently and thoroughly searched the PPO/Account details of the husband of the Petitioner in the Bank Office and in the system, but could not find out the same. It has also been stated in the Counter Affidavit that the Branch Manager then talked with 2^ndwife of late Moharana, but she could not help him. Hence, it is found that the PPO/Account details of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana is lost. The relevant portion from Paragraph 3 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.7-Bank is extracted below:

16

"This Opp. Party has diligently searched the PPO/account details of the husband of the petitioner in the Bank office and in the system thoroughly but could not find the same. Then he talked with second wife regarding PPO paper but she could not help him.

Hence it is found that PPO/account details of Late Prafulla Chandra Moharana is lost."

(Emphasis supplied)

15. So far as the question regarding up to which month and year the 2^ndwife of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana, Smt. Sarojini Moharana has received the family pension, it has been stated in the said Counter Affidavit that the Bank staff contacted son of the 2^ndwife, who is staying near the concerned Branch of the Bank, though his mobile. The said staff also talked with Smt. Sarojini over phone, who could not remember up to which date and year she has received the family pension of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana due to her old age. Thereafter, the Branch Manager met with the District Treasury Officer by serving a letter on him, requesting therein to cooperate with him to resolve the said issue enabling the Petitioner to get her family pension. But, the District Treasury Officer expressed his inability to do the needful, on the plea that the Bank could not return the PPO of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana. To substantiate said pleadings made in the Counter Affidavit, apart from request letters sent to the District Treasury Officer (Opposite Party No.6), his response dated 17.04.2023,

17

addressed to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Balasore, has been annexed as Annexure-B/7 to the Counter, contents of which are extracted below.

"OFFICE OF THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT

TREASUR, BALASORE

No. 813/Try. Dated 17|04|2023 To

The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank, Balasore. Sub:- Resolve the W.P.(C) No.13557 of 2016 in favour of Subasini Moharana @ Kanaka Moharana

Ref:- Letter received on Dt.12.-04-2023 from B.M. Punjab National Bank, Balasore Sir,

In inviting kind reference on the subject cited above, as directed by the Hon. High Court of Odisha, Cuttack, you are unable to send the disburser's portion with recording the last payment certificate. Hence, there is no scope to shut out the said disputes with regard to receipt of PPO of Late- Prafulla Chandra Moharana.

This is for favour of information. Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Treasury Officer,

District Treasury Balasore"

(Emphasis supplied) In addition to the said stand taken by the Opposite Party No.7-Bank, it has also been stated in the Counter Affidavit that in the facts and circumstances, it is presumed that after the Judgment dated 2.04.2012 in C.S. No.121 of 2002 and Order

18

dated 18.06.2015 in RSA No.183 of 2013, the family pension might not have been released in favour of the so called 2^ndwife Smt. Sorajini Moharana and it can only be released after passing necessary order by this Court.

16. Mr. Rout, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1, 3 and 6, so also Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 drew attention of this Court to the provisions contained under Rule 280-B of the Odisha Treasury Code and submitted that the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No.7-Bank has to file a specific Affidavit and furnish the same to the Opposite Party No.6 that the PPO/Account details of late P.C. Moharana is lost. Averments made in the Counter Affidavit that the said PPO is lost cannot be the basis to proceed further on the part of the Treasury Officer to do the needful enabling the Petitioner to get her family pension. In view of such submissions made by the learned Counsel for the said Opposite Parties, it is apt to extract Rule 280-B of the Odisha Treasury Code.

"If both the halves of a Pension Payment Order are lost after commencement of payment, the Accountant-General shall be moved through the Treasury (even when payment is made through a Public Sector Bank) who shall issue a duplicate Pension Payment Order, which will be prominently marked as "Duplicate-No payment to be made against original Pension Payment Order." A note to this effect will also be kept by him against the relevant entry in the Register of Pension

19

Payment Orders issued, before forwarding the duplicate Pension Payment Order (both halves) to the disbursing officer. After duplicate Pension Payment Order is issued by the Accountant- General, the disbursing authority whether Treasury or Public Sector Bank, shall fill up the payment portion with reference to the records maintained by such authority.

Before commencing the payment, the following further action shall be taken by the Disbursing Officer, namely:-

(a) It will be verified from the Register of Pension Payment Orders (Form No. OTC 36) that no payment had been made to the pensioner on the basis of the original P.P.O. from the date it was reported to be lost.

(b) A confirmation will be obtained from the pensioner and kept on record, that he has not received and payment against the original Pension Payment Order from the date it was reported to be lost. He will also furnish an undertaking that he will surrender, to the Disbursing Officer, the original Pension Payment Order, if traced out later, and will not claim any payment on its strength. First payment of pension against the duplicate Pension Payment Order shall, in no case, be authorised at an office other than the one mentioned in the original Pension Payment Order."

(Emphasis supplied)

17. In view of the said provision, the Opposite Party No.7- Bank is directed to move before the Opposite Party No.2- Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar through Opposite Party No.6 (District Treasury Officer, Balasore) within two weeks hence, clearly indicating therein that the Pension Payment Order and account details of late Prafulla Chandra

20

Moharana are lost, supported with an Affidavit to the said effect. On moving so, in terms of Regulation 280-B of the Odisha Treasury Code, the Opposite Party No.6 is directed to forward the same to the Opposite Party No.2 within a week thereafter enabling him to issue a duplicate Pension Payment Order in terms of Regulation 280-B of the Odisha Treasury Code within two weeks thereafter.

18. After issuance of such duplicate Pension Payment Order, the Opposite Party No.2 shall forward the same to the Opposite Party No.6 within a week from the date of issuance of duplicate PPO. As the Opposite Party No.7-Bank is unable to furnish the Last Payment Certificate, the Opposite Party No.6 is directed to do the needful to ensure filling up of the payment portion in the duplicate Pension Payment Order in consultation with the Director of Treasuries and Inspection and the Opposite Party No.2 and disburse the current family pension, so also arrear family pension to the Petitioner w.e.f. 02.04.2012 i.e. the date of judgment passed in C.S. No.121 of 2002 till date, within two weeks thereafter.

19. Admittedly, the Opposite Party no.7-Bank (presently known as Punjab National Bank) was a party in C.S. No.121 of

21

2002 till the said judgment and decree attained finality before this Court in R.S.A. No.183 of 2013 and it was well aware about the grievance of the Petitioner, so also direction given by the Court below, which was confirmed by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that Opposite Party No.7-Bank not only neglected to return the disburser's portion of PPO No.305774 of late Prafulla Chandra Moharana to the Office of the District Treasury Officer, Balasore recording Last Payment Certificate for onward transmission of the same to the Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar, but also failed to do the needful and tried to mislead this Court making false submission through its Officers present before this Court that there is no such pensioner namely, P.C. Moharana or Sarojini Rana @ Moharana allegedly getting pension/family pension through the Bank and there is no such account in their names. Also communication was made to the said effect to the Opposite Party No.6. Subsequently, contrary to such submission, a Counter Affidavit was filed before this Court stating therein that PPO and account details of late P.C. Moharana have been lost.

20. In view of the above, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.7-Bank to pay 6% interest on the arrear family pension payable to the Petitioner since 02.12.2015 i.e. the date of

22

request made to it by the District Treasury Officer, Balasore, till the date of actual payment within two weeks from the date of intimation received from the Opposite Party No.6. In order to enable the Opposite Party No.7 to pay the interest on the arrear family pension, as directed, the District Treasury Officer shall calculate and intimate the arrear family pension paid to the Petitioner, including the date of payment, within two weeks from the date of making such payment.

21. The entire exercise has to be completed within ten weeks hence.

22. It is further directed that the Opposite Party No.7-Bank shall pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) to the Petitioner towards cost to compensate the litigation expenses and hardship caused to her, who is fighting a legal marathon since 2012 to get her legitimate dues (family pension), she being the legal married wife of late P.C. Moharana. The said cost is to be paid to the Petitioner within four weeks hence and Compliance Affidavit be filed to the said effect with the Registry within a week thereafter.

23. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, with above direction.

23

24. Parties are at liberty to act on the website copy of this judgment to avoid delay in implementing the direction given above.

25. Urgent certified copy of this judgment also be granted on proper application in accordance with law.

(S.K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, 17^thMay, 2023/Padma

24