The Calcutta High Court has reiterated the principle that pensionary laws benefiting a homogenous class of pensioners should be interpreted liberally in their favor.
The court held that Government memorandum No. 539-SE dated November 01, 2010, still applies to the grant of pensionary benefits to unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters of retired employees or family pensioners, in the absence of any provisions affecting or restricting the same.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon, Justice Shampa Sarkar, and Justice Rabindranath Samanta observed that family pension can be extended to unmarried/widowed daughters of employees who superannuated or died prior to the implementation of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981, which came into effect on April 1, 1981. The bench further stated that both teaching and non-teaching staff who retired before or after April 1, 1981, were entitled to pensionary benefits under the DCRB Scheme, 1981.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case involved Sabita Roy, the respondent, who was granted a family pension by a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. She sought family pension as the widowed daughter of a deceased Assistant Teacher, Debobrata Roy, who retired on March 31, 1979, and passed away on December 31, 1991. After her father's death, her mother did not receive any family pension, but the retiral dues were distributed equally among the legal heirs. Sabita Roy became widowed on July 20, 2008, before her mother's death on March 9, 2012. She applied for family pension, which was initially denied. However, a writ petition filed by her resulted in the court directing the state authority to grant her family pension.
High Court's Observation
In its decision, the High Court referred to the golden principles outlined in the case of D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, emphasizing that pensioners form a homogenous class and any classification within that class based on the date of retirement would be arbitrary and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that the legislative intent was to extend the benefits of family pension to unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters of employees who retired before or after April 1, 1981, or to unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters of family pensioners.
The court further noted that the memorandum dated November 1, 2010, should not hinder the extension of these benefits unless there is an express provision restricting or affecting them. It emphasized the importance of socio-economic justice and the need to interpret memoranda granting social security and livelihood to these classes of women liberally.
Case Title: Sate of West Bengal and Others vs. Sabita Roy
Case Details: MAT 608 of 2021, IA No. CAN 2 of 2021
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Tandon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shampa Sarkar, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rabindranath Samanta
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld.GP, Ms. Kakali Samajpati, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Salil Kumar Maity, Adv. Ms. Pinky Saha, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chandar Dutta,Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
