JUDGMENT JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. – The appellant is the wife of deceased Krushna Chandra Bahinipati, who died on 06.01.2007 and made her claim for pension from the employer-Orissa Power Transmission Corporation (hereinafter called as "Corporation") by filing an application along with death certificate and legal heir certificate issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar in Misc. Certificate Case No.280/09. The pension amount was not determined by the respondents and extended to the appellant herein for the reasons that the succession certificate is required to be produced placing reliance upon Rule-52 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") in relation to gratuity in case of death/retirement in the absence of family members or nomination. In the legal heir certificate, the names of the family members are clearly mentioned, namely, the appellant herein, one married daughter-Mamata Bahinipati and three major sons, namely, Malaya Kumar Bahinipati, Mihir Kumar Bahinipati and Priyadarshi Bahinipati. There being no order for grant of family pension under the Rule which is applicable under the Rule-56 of the Rules referred to supra, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.18626 of 2011 seeking a direction to the opp.parties for release of the family pension and arrears. Annexure-6 is the letter dated 19.01.2011 issued to the appellant by the respondent No.3-Deputy Manager (HRD) Pension, OPTCL, Bhubaneswar, the operative portion of which has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in order dated 26.7.2011. The said letter states that the appellant should produce the succession certificate issued by the competent civil Court in favour of the appellant-wife of late K.C. Bahinipati, the ex-Superintendent, Drawing, GRIDCO Headquarters Office, Bhubaneswar. The learned Single Judge has declined to quash the same by stating that the opp.party, vide Annexure-6, has asked the appellant herein to produce the succession certificate since some doubts have been created on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant in the mind of the competent authority to release the pension in her favour. Therefore, learned Single Judge declined to exercise the discretionary power and dismissed the writ petition against which the appellant filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to quash the letter under Annexure-6 issued by the opp.Party No.3 to produce the succession certificate. 2. Mr. Therefore, learned Single Judge declined to exercise the discretionary power and dismissed the writ petition against which the appellant filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to quash the letter under Annexure-6 issued by the opp.Party No.3 to produce the succession certificate. 2. Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of learned Single Judge is erroneous in upholding the letter issued by the respondent No.3 insisting upon the appellant to produce succession certificate, which is contrary to Rule 3(d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 which provides for legal heir certificate for limited purposes such as drawal of pension, gratuity, arrears, salaries, provident fund, etc. In such disputed case involving claims to property or large amounts, the applicant may be advised to approach the civil Court and it was further submitted that Rule-56 of the Rules provides for family pension. Non-mentioning of the name of the appellant as family member in the nomination made for the purpose of getting gratuity amount under Rule-52 of the Rules in case of death of an employee, learned counsel submits that the said Rule regarding family pension has no application to the present case. Further, it is not disputed by some other persons that the appellant is not the legal wife of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos.3's insisting upon the appellant to produce succession certificate is contrary to the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. It is further contended that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge at the time of examining claim of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition at the stage of preliminary hearing. Therefore, it is prayed by learned counsel for the appellant to set aside the impugned order and quash the letter of the Deputy Manager (HRD), Pension under Annexure-6 by allowing the present writ appeal & Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon Rule-50 of the Rules which indicates the persons to whom gratuity is payable and Rule-75(2) of the Rules which provides that the appointing authority shall accord sanction in Part-II of the Form 15 and transmit the same to the Accounts Officer not later than 15 days from the date of its receipt in Form No.16. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the issuance of letter under Annexure-6. Placing reliance on Rule 52 of the Rules further submits that the writ petition was dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing, therefore, the issuance of letter under Annexure-6 which is impugned in the writ appeal is legal and valid as there is no mention of the name of the appellant in the nomination form by the deceased-husband of the appellant during his life time in employment. 5. With reference to the aforesaid rival and legal contentions, the following questions would arise for consideration :– (i) Whether the employer is justified in issuing letter under Annexure-6 calling upon the appellant to produce succession certificate ? (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to quash Annexure-6 is legal and valid? (iii) Whether not quashing Annexure-6 and insisting upon appellant to produce succession certificate which is contrary to Rule 3(d) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 and Rule 75(2) of the Rules and not considering its provision by learned Single Judge and not exercising his power to quash Annexure-6 is the substantial question of law that would arise for consideration of this Court? (iv) What order? 6. All the aforesaid questions are to be answered in favour of the appellant for the following reasons :- (i) it is an undisputed fact that the appellant is the wife of the deceased-Late Krushna Chanda Bahinipati who is an employer of the opposite parties. (ii) It is also an undisputed fact that she has submitted her application to the opposite party No.1 seeking for grant of family pension by producing the death certificate, legal heir certificate and other relevant documents. It is also not disputed that the correctness of issuance of a death certificate for grant of the pension and gratuity in her favour. The Corporation has insisted to produce the succession certificate as provided under Rule 52 of the Rules. Rule 52 of the Pension Rules deals with the gratuity in case of death/retirement in the absence of family members or nomination. The Corporation has insisted to produce the succession certificate as provided under Rule 52 of the Rules. Rule 52 of the Pension Rules deals with the gratuity in case of death/retirement in the absence of family members or nomination. Sub-Clause (b) of Rule 52 speaks of the nomination made by him does not subsist, the amount of death/retirement gratuity payable in respect of such Government servant shall be payable to the person in whose favour a succession certificate in respect of gratuity in question has been granted by a competent Court of Law. Rule 56 does not speak of succession certificate. Rule 56 must be read with Rule 75(2) of the Pension Rules and Rule 3(d) of the Miscellaneous Rules, 1984 which read thus: "Rule 3(d): Legal Heir Certificate shall be granted for limited purposes such as drawl of pension, gratuity, arrears, salaries, Provident Fund, etc. In disputed case involving claims to property or large amounts the applicants may be advised to approach the Civil Court." "52. Gratuity in case of death/retirement in the absence of family members or nomination - Where a Government servant dies while in service or after retirement without receiving the amount of gratuity and leaves behind him no family, and (a) has made no nomination: or (b) the nomination made by him does not subsist, the amount of death/retirement gratuity payable in respect of such Government servant shall be payable to the person in whose favour a succession certificate in respect of gratuity in question has been granted by a competent Court of law." "Rule 75(2) - The appointing authority shall accord sanction in Part II of Form 15 and transmit the same to the Accounts Officer not later than fifteen days from the date of this receipt in Form 16. He shall retain one copy of the aforesaid Form 15 for his office record." The list of enclosure required to be submitted along with the application Form-16 which provides for necessary documents to grant family pension. Item No.6 of the forms refers to attested copy of the LR certificate sought where no valid nomination subsists. The Form 16 containing list of enclosures to the Form clearly provides for issuing LR certificate. Item No.6 of the forms refers to attested copy of the LR certificate sought where no valid nomination subsists. The Form 16 containing list of enclosures to the Form clearly provides for issuing LR certificate. It does not contemplate to produce the succession certificate and therefore the actions of the opposite parties insisting to produce the Succession Certificate for the reason mentioned in the impugned letter is contrary to the aforesaid statutory form. Therefore, insisting upon producing the succession certificate is an arbitrary, unreasonable action on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Annexure-6. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while examining the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. Hence, non-consideration of the relevant statutory provisions of the Pension Rules and action of the opposite parties insisting the appellant to produce the Succession Certificate for sanction of pension in favour of the appellant is contrary to the requirement as provided in the Form 16, therefore the action of the opposite parties is arbitrary, unreasonable and that has made the appellant to suffer for the last two years from the date of submitting the application along with necessary enclosures. Thereby she has been deprived of getting the pension amount as per the Pension Rules for which she is legally entitled to. Therefore, she is entitled for the interest on the amount which is required to be quantified shall be paid at 12 per cent interest. The apex Court in the case of O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and others; (1987) 4 SCC 328 has clearly held that the persons who are entitled to the pension amount, but they have not been paid, shall be paid along with 12 per cent interest. The decision of the Supreme Court regarding grant of interest on the pensionary benefits due to the appellant is applicable to the present case for the reason that the opposite parties have insisted the appellant to produce the Succession Certificate which is not required under the Rules referred to supra. Therefore, the appellant must succeed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge, the impugned letter issued under Annexure-6 by the opposite party No.3 are hereby set aside and quashed by allowing this appeal and the writ petition. Rule issued. Therefore, the appellant must succeed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge, the impugned letter issued under Annexure-6 by the opposite party No.3 are hereby set aside and quashed by allowing this appeal and the writ petition. Rule issued. Direction is given to the opposite parties hereunder to accept the LR certificate and see that the pension is quantified and paid to the appellant from the date of her entitlement with 12 per cent interest. The entire exercise of considering the application and sanctioning pension along with interest on arrears of pension amount at 12 per cent shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and pay the same to the appellant otherwise the amount shall carry interest at 18%, which shall be recovered from the concerned officers by the OPTCL. Petition allowed.