Menakarani Majumdar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2744 Cal

    16
11.05.2022
 Ct. No.23
     pg.
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                               WPA 12410 of 2021

                             Menakarani Majumdar
                                       Vs.
                           State of West Bengal & Ors.


                    Mr. Anirban Majumder
                               ... For the petitioner

                    Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, AGP
                    Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick
                    Mr. Sayan Ganguly
                               ... For the State

                    Mr. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay
                               ... For the respondentsno.2, 3, 4 & 5

The husband of the petitioner served the

respondent no.1 from 25th September, 1958 till 30th June,

1984 and was thereafter absorbed in Food Corporation of

India (in short "FCI") on and from 1st July, 1984. The

petitioner's husband served FCI till 30th June, 1993 and

retired therefrom on attaining the age of superannuation.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia,

claiming family pension from the respondent no.1 for the

services rendered by her late husband to the said

respondent.

The issue of receiving family pension in a case like

that of the petitioner had fallen for consideration before a

Division Bench of this Court. By a judgment and order

dated 1st August, 2016 passed in WPST 278-281 of 2014,

the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that in case of an

absorbee pensioner entitled to pro rata pension under the

provisions of Rule 189A of the West Bengal Services

(Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (in short

"DCRB Rules"), the family pension is not available. The

petitioner, therefor, is not entitled to family pension.

The petitioner has raised another issue that her

husband during his lifetime has not been paid the full

amount on account pro rata pension. The petitioner's

husband served the respondent no.1 between 25th

September, 1958 and 30th June, 1984. Thereafter, he

served FCI on and from 1st July, 1984 and retired on 30th

June, 1993 and died on 19th October, 2008. The claim for

pro rata pension is for serving respondent no.1 between

25th September, 1958 and 30th June, 1984. The right to get

pro rata pension fructified in favour of the petitioner's

husband on or after 30th June, 1984. Even if the pro rata

pension was given much after 30th June, 1984 then also

the claim for non-payment is a vintage one made after at

least 25 years. The petitioner's husband though had made

representations before the respondents regarding non-

payment of the full amount of pro rata pension but had

never approached the Court asserting his right or seeking

redressal of such issues when the representations were not

considered and disposed of. Considering that the retiral

benefits to be a property and forms part of the estate left

behind by a deceased to the beneficiaries, the petitioner, at

the highest, can claim to be the beneficiaries of the estate

left behind by her husband.

It is true that approaching the Court at a belated

stage for claiming retiral benefits is not always fatal as

held in the judgment of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana &

Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44. However, as settled in

Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008)

8 SCC 648 that if a person approaches the Court after an

inordinate delay claiming retiral benefits, the writ petition

is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay

or laches. This view has been further approved in the

judgment of Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance

Corporation of India, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 797.

In the instant case, assuming without admitting

that the petitioner's husband was not paid the entire

amount of pro rata pension, then also the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed for the petitioner having approached

this Court only on 5th August, 2021 when the writ petition

was filed. The writ petition is, therefor, filed 13 years after

the death of the concerned employee. This fact coupled

with the fact that the right, if any, accrued immediately

after 30th June, 1984 establish an inordinate delay for

which the writ petition is required to and should be

dismissed. That apart and in any event, it will be mere

impossible to reconcile the bank accounts statements

between 1993 and 2008 in 2022 to ascertain whether the

petitioner's husband had been paid the entire amount of

pro rata pension.

Considering these aspects of the matter, the writ

petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to

costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)