While dealing with a petition pertaining to the disbursal of the service benefits of a deceased teacher, the Calcutta High Court has held that the brother of the deceased does not come within the definition of family for family pension under clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1981. The High Court also took note of the fact that the mother of the deceased never claimed her deceased son’s benefits.
The Calcutta High Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by one Chandranath Chatterjee, who was aggrieved by the non-disbursal of the service benefits/died-in-harness benefits of his brother.
The Division Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty held, “In the writ petition, no document was annexed to establish that Namita at all claimed the benefits of family pension for the period from 12.03.2003 to 19.05.2014. No contemporaneous steps were taken claiming such benefits. She, in fact, was a pensioner and got the benefits on account of his deceased husband. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge, in our opinion, rightly refused to exercise discretion and to grant the arrears of family pension for the period from 12.03.2003 to 19.05.2014 to Chandranath moreso when being the brother of the deceased, he does not come within the definition of family for the purpose of family pension under clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme 1981.”
Advocate Prasenjit Mukherjee represented the Appellant, while Additional Government Pleader Supriyo Chattoapadhyay represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2002, when one Siddhinath Chatterjee died in harness while working as an assistant teacher, leaving behind his mother, namely Namita Chatterjee, his wife Munmun Bhattacharjee, two sisters and one brother, namely Chandranath. Subsequent thereto, Munmun remarried, and Namita died in 2014. Chandranath thereafter obtained a succession certificate in 2017 and claimed the pensionary benefits of his deceased brother, but in vain. In the year 2017, he preferred a writ petition, which was disposed of by an order directing the respondents to consider the documents and to process the claim of Chandranath. When no steps were taken, Chandranath preferred the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, Chandranath expired, and in his place his wife, son and daughter got substituted.
The Single Judge refused the prayer for family pension in favour of Chandranath, as he was the brother of the deceased and did not come within the definition of family for family pension under Clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme 1981. However, the Single Judge directed the respondents to disburse the provident fund and the gratuity amount accumulated in favour of the deceased teacher to the substituted writ petitioner, upon proof of her legal heirship.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that in the writ petition, no document was annexed to establish that the mother of the deceased teacher at all claimed the benefits of family pension for the period from March 12, 2003, to May 19, 2014. The Bench further noticed that no contemporaneous steps were taken to claim such benefits.
The Bench held, “Chandranath’s brother expired on 13.01.2002. Chandranath’s right to claim pensionary benefits crystallised only after he obtained the succession certificate on 13.11.2017. Appropriate steps were not taken by Chandranath to answer the audit observations contained in the order dated 09.01.2019. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay to settle the pension claim is totally attributable to the State authorities.”
Explaining that payment of interest has to be taken to be within the ambit of the expression ‘just’, the Bench held that the Court should exercise restraint before passing an order saddling the State Government with a financial burden. Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is inexpedient to direct the State to pay interest to the writ petitioners, as claimed.”
Cause Title: Smt. Ranu Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (Case No.: FMA 400 of 2026)
Appearance
Appellants: Advocates Prasenjit Mukherjee, Sima Ghosh
State: AGP Supriyo Chattoapadhyay, Advocate Gourav Das