Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 319 (CAL)

KALPANA CHAKRABORTY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2017-03-23

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The instant mandamus appeal is directed against an order dated 9th September, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. 22104(W) of 2015 at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant. 2. The husband of the writ petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of India. He died-in-harness. The writ petitioner being the widow of the said employee, since deceased, was given compassionate appointment under died-in-harness category. She retired on superannuation with effect from 28th February, 2014. While settling the retiral dues of the writ petitioner, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) only was deducted from the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner and the said amount was kept in a fixed deposit under lien towards recovery of the bank's dues from the writ petitioner. Such decision was taken by the bank authority while settling the retiral dues, as the son of the writ petitioner intimated the bank authority about the remarriage of the writ petitioner with one Nikhilesh Mondal on 9th August, 1991. This leads the bank to form a prima facie opinion that the writ petitioner was not entitled to draw family pension from the date of her remarriage till May 2011. 3. Since the writ petitioner denied her remarriage with Shri Mondal, the Assistant General Manager by his letter dated 29th January, 2014 advised the writ petitioner to resolve the dispute regarding her alleged remarriage with Shri Mondal on 9th August, 1991 on urgent basis so that the retirement of the writ petitioner from the bank's service becomes a smooth and pleasant affair. 4. Being aggrieved by the said communication made by the bank to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the said communication and for early settlement of her retiral dues and/or payment of all admissible dues including family pension. 5. 4. Being aggrieved by the said communication made by the bank to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the said communication and for early settlement of her retiral dues and/or payment of all admissible dues including family pension. 5. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to comply with the requirements of the State Bank of India, as contained in the letter dated 29th January, 2014, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order with a rider that in the event, the writ petitioner complies with the requirements of the State Bank of India, as contained in the letter dated 29th January, 2014, within the time frame as stated above, the concerned authority of the State Bank of India shall refund the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) to the writ petitioner. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this mandamus appeal. 6. We do not find any illegality and/or unreasonableness in the impugned order for which interference is necessary in this appeal. When a dispute was raised with regard to the factum of remarriage of the petitioner with Shri Mondal, as stated above, the petitioner's entitlement towards family pension after her alleged remarriage cannot be settled until such dispute is resolved by competent Court of Law. It is no doubt true that if remarriage cannot be disproved by the petitioner before the competent Court of Law, then certainly she is not entitled to get family pension after her remarriage. On the contrary, if she is able to prove that there was no remarriage between her and Shri Mondal, then she is entitled to get family pension. Thus, the settlement of the writ petitioner's claim towards family pension is dependent upon the resolution of such dispute by the competent Court of law. As such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. However, we clarify that the Bank authority will act upon the decision of the civil court on such a dispute and will release the admissible dues on account of family pension to the writ petitioner/appellant immediately after such dispute is resolved by the competent Court of Law and if the decision goes in her favour. 7. However, we clarify that the Bank authority will act upon the decision of the civil court on such a dispute and will release the admissible dues on account of family pension to the writ petitioner/appellant immediately after such dispute is resolved by the competent Court of Law and if the decision goes in her favour. Till such time, the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) only which was kept apart and was invested in interest earning fixed deposit, will be kept renewed. 8. The Bank authority is, however, directed to release the other retiral dues and/or the retiral benefits which are admissible to the writ petitioner on account of her actual service which she rendered to the said Bank till the date of her retirement within one month from the date of communication of this order, if not paid earlier. 9. The appeal and the application filed in connection therewith are, thus, disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.