Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nilmani Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 February, 2022
02.02.2022
SL No. 10
Court No. 24
(P.M)
WPA 19309 of 2017
Nilmani Chakraborty
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Chandan Dutta
... for the petitioner
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya,
Mr. Niloy Baran Mondal
... for DPSC.
Mr. K. N. Nabi
... for the State
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
2nd February, 2017 issued by the Director, Pension,
Provident Fund and Group Insurance rejecting the
claim of the petitioner for setting aside the Pension
Payment Order and re-fixing the pension.
Fact remains that the wife of the petitioner was
an Assistant Teacher of a primary school. She retired
from service on attaining her normal age of
superannuation on 30th June, 2002. Pension Payment
Order was issued in favour of the retired teacher on
30th November, 2004 and the teacher died on 26th
April, 2005. After the death of the teacher the
petitioner being the spouse is receiving family pension.
Presently the grievance of the petitioner is that
the pay of the teacher was not fixed properly in
accordance with ROPA 1998.
2
The petitioner prays for re-fixation of the pay
and the pension by setting aside the Pension Payment
Order which the teacher received as well as the family
pension which the petitioner is presently receiving.
The petitioner approached the respondent
authority to re-fix the pension by filing a
representation on 28th October, 2015 before the
Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group
Insurance. As the said representation of the petitioner
was not taken up for consideration, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing a writ petition being
W.P. No. 7768 (W) of 2016 (Nilmani Chakraborty - Vs
- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) which stood
disposed of by an order dated 7th October, 2016
wherein the Court directed the respondent authority
to consider the representation made by the petitioner
on 28th October, 2015.
The impugned order has been passed upon
consideration of the petitioner's representation dated
28th October, 2015 and the prayer of the petitioner for
re-fixation of the pension of the deceased teacher has
been rejected on the ground of delay.
According to the petitioner the ground of delay
ought not to be taken by the respondent authority as
the same is a recurring cause of action and the prayer
of the petitioner ought not to be disallowed on the said
ground.
The petitioner has relied upon an unreported
order dated 7th January, 2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 363 of 2020
with CAN 2 of 2021 (Sarwari Begam - Vs. - The State
of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of his case.
The respondents oppose the prayer of the
petitioner.
I have heard the submissions made on behalf of
both the parties and perused the documents annexed
to the writ petition as well as the order dated 7th
January, 2022 passed in Sarwari Begam (supra).
It appears that the teacher concerned retired on
30th June, 2002, Pension Payment Order was issued
in favour of the teacher on 30th November, 2004 and
she expired on 26th April, 2005. The teacher concerned
never raised any objection with regard to the wrong
fixation of her pay. After the death of the teacher the
petitioner being the spouse of the deceased teacher
received family pension. It is for the first time on 28th
October, 2015 the petitioner made an application for
re-fixation of the scale of pay of his deceased wife. The
said prayer of the petitioner stood rejected on the
ground of delay.
I am of the opinion that the prayer of the
petitioner has been rightly rejected. Had the teacher
concerned being aggrieved with the pay that was fixed,
she ought to have approached the competent authority
by making appropriate application in proper time.
After nearly 10 years of death of the deceased teacher
her husband has approached the authority praying for
re-fixation of pay in respect of the deceased teacher.
The same is impermissible in law.
Judgment relied upon by the petitioner in
Sarwari Begam (supra) will certainly not be applicable
in the present case. In Sarwari Begam (supra) the
dispute pertained to re-fixation of pension in terms of
the circulars, which were applicable. The present case
is not the same. The teacher concerned never
ventilated her grievances, if any, during her life time.
After nearly 10 years of death the issue regarding
wrong fixation of pay cannot be permitted to be
reopened. There has been inordinate unexplained
delay in approaching the authority for re-fixation of
the scale of pay.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted to
the petitioner in the instant case.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on completion of
usual formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
