ORDER B.K.DASH, Acting Chairman - The applicant is the widow of late Anadi Charan Nayak, who died on 23.11.1958 while in service. She has claimed sanction of family pension in accordance with Rule 56 of he OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that her husband Anadi Charan Nayak, was appointed as a Primary School Teacher with effect from 24.08.1946 and died on 23.11.1958. The husband of the applicant was employed under the Ex-state of Keonjhar and his services were taken over by the State of Odisha with effect from 01.01.1948. The service of late husband of the applicant was confirmed with effect from 01.06.1949. As on the date of his death, he had completed more than 12 years of service and as such he was entitled for pension and the applicant being his widow is entitled to family pension with effect from 13.12.1977 as per Resolution No.44348 dtd. 09.09.1986. 3. The Respondent No.3, District Inspector of Schools, filed counter admitting that the late husband of the applicant was working in a Government Chatasali at Daughat, which was subsequently established as Primary School with effect from 24.08.1946. The husband of the applicant died on 23.11.1958. The claim of the applicant for family pension is not entertainable as she has approached the Tribunal 50 years after the death of her husband. It is averred that the applicant has failed to produce any documents to show that her husband was an Ex-state employee. No document is also available in his office to support the claim of the applicant, for which she is not entitled to the relief claimed for. It may be noted that during course of hearing, the applicant was directed to produce documents showing that her (the applicant’s) husband was an Ex-state employee and is entitled for pension, but no document could be produced. However, judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.181/1987 and the letter of Director of Public Instruction dtd. 30.1.1948 were filed to support her contention. 4. Considering the rival contention, the question that requires consideration is whether the late husband of the applicant was an Ex-state employee and after merger of the State with effect from 01.01.1948, he was treated as a Government employee and is entitled to benefits as has been extended to other Government employees. 5. 30.1.1948 were filed to support her contention. 4. Considering the rival contention, the question that requires consideration is whether the late husband of the applicant was an Ex-state employee and after merger of the State with effect from 01.01.1948, he was treated as a Government employee and is entitled to benefits as has been extended to other Government employees. 5. It is not disputed that the applicant was working in a Chatasali at Daughat which was subsequently established as a Primary School with effect from 24.08.1946 and the husband of the applicant became a regular Primary School Teacher from the said date. He served as a teacher in the primary school till his death on 23.11.1958. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal earlier in O.A. No.181/1987 and batch of cases have already adjudicated the issue with to the regard claim of Ex-state employee and therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of a Government employee. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, S&ME submitted that as the applicant has failed to produce any document showing that he was an Ex-state employee in order to get benefit of a Government employee, he is not entitled to any such benefits. He has also challenged the claim of the applicant which he has raised after lapse of 50 years. 7. So far as question of limitation and delay is concerned, it is profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.R. Mastan Bee Vrs. General Manager South Central Railway and Another, reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 184, where the Hon’ble Court considered the plight of a helpless illiterate widow and observed as follows :- xx xx xx “6. We notice that the applicant’s husband was working as a gang man who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension to enforce her right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband’s employer viz., the Railway in the case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband’s employer viz., the Railway in the case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judges well as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railway and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellant’s lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed to the Railways. The question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, was the Appellate Bench justified in restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of the appellant’s husband on which date she had legally become entitled to the grant of pension ? In this case as noticed by us herein above the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of delay put forth by the Railway and taking note of the appellant’s right to pension and the denial of the same by the Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect agreeing with the learned Single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railway by the appellant for the grant of family pension was not fatal, in spite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from the date on which the appellant issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 1.4.1992. We think on the facts of the case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact that her husband was only a Gang Man in the Railway who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact the appellant is an illiterate, the learned single Judge in our opinion, was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1.4.1992. Xx xx xx 8. The applicant in the present case is almost similarly placed and therefore, the delay and latches cannot be strictly considered to deny the claim of the applicant, if she is otherwise entitled. So far as the claim of the applicant that her husband was an Ex-state employee of Keonjhar and is entitled to the benefit of a Government employee, has been settled in the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No.181/1987 (OJC No.1231/1979) and batch where the case of Primary School Teacher in the Ex-state of Keonjhar has also been adjudicated. For better appreciation relevant part of the order is quoted as follows : Xx xx xx “9. In the premises aforesaid, we hold that the petitioners in all these cases on their services being taken over by the State Government were entitled to be treated as Government servants after the merger of the ex-State where they were working as Primary School Teachers with the province of the Orissa and will be entitled to all the benefits available to teachers of Government Primary Schools. In cases where the petitioners have already retired, they will be deemed to have retired as Government servants and given benefits available to retired primary School Teachers of Government Schools.” 9. In similar situation, the Government have extended the benefit to one Bhagarathi Panda, who was an Ex-state Teacher vide order dtd. 19.06.1996 and nothing has been shown how the claim of the applicant is distinguishable. In similar situation, the Government have extended the benefit to one Bhagarathi Panda, who was an Ex-state Teacher vide order dtd. 19.06.1996 and nothing has been shown how the claim of the applicant is distinguishable. It is admitted that the applicant was working as a Primary School Teacher with effect from 24.08.1946 and as appears, the DPI Odisha, vide letter dtd. 30.01.1948 requested the Administrators of all ex-State Orissa States to submit a full and compressive report on all educational institutions in their states with the existing staff, their suitability or otherwise for absorption in Government service. Further in letter dtd. 26th April, 1968, the DPI has indicated that the existing educational institution of all types and grade in the integrated States will be directly managed by the Government. In view of such correspondences and orders, there is nothing to take a contrary view that the school in which the applicant’s husband was working was taken over by the Government. Respondents, as a model employer should have produced, the relevant documents to cooperate a helpless lady to get benefits which is accrued to her late husband, but no such documents could be produced. On the other hand, the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No.181/1987 fully covers the case of the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for sanction of family pension as per the ratio decided in O.A. No.181/1987 and batch and extend the benefits, as due and admissible for sanction of family pension as claimed by her w.e.f. 13.12.1977 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, arrears dues be calculated and paid to her within a period of two months thereafter. No order as to the cost. O.A. disposed of.