The Orissa High Court has recently granted the family pension claim of a transwoman, who was allegedly discriminated against on the basis of her gender, and censured those who argued against her case. A single bench of justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held, that “…this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner as a transgender has every right to choose her gender and accordingly, she has submitted her application for grant of family pension under Section 56(1) of Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. Further such right has been recognized and legalized by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NALSA's Case (supra) and as such, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all."
The case came up to Orissa HC when the present petitioner, who is a transwoman, applied for the sanction of family pension in her favour under Rule 56 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 to the Executive Engineer RW Division, Rayagada. The father of the petitioner, the late Balaji Kondagari, was a government servant, and after his death, his wife, Binjama Kondagari, was sanctioned and disbursed the family pension. On her passing in 2020, the current petitioner and her sister applied for the pension to be sanctioned and disbursed to them.
The counsel for the petitioner, Omkar Devdas, held that the authorities did not fairly consider the petitioner’s application, even though unmarried daughters can claim family pensions as per the law. He also suggested that since the petitioner belonged to the transgender community, the authorities treated her in a discriminatory manner. Devdas also submitted a certificate issued by the district magistrate in 2021, which clearly stated that the petitioner has been recognised legally as a transgender woman as per Rule 5 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 read with Section 6 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Discriminatory behaviour against her by the authorities is therefore unlawful.