Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 743 (CAL)

Ranu Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal

2025-10-28

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1) The original writ petitioner having died during pendency of the instant writ petition, his wife has been substituted herein, in his place. 2) The present writ petition is to seek redress of the grievance of the original writ petitioner that he being the brother of the deceased Assistant Teacher, has not been granted with the terminal benefits after demise of his brother during the tenure of his service and also the family pension to which the dependent family of the deceased Assistant Teacher is entitled to, after his death. 3) The brother (now deceased) of the original writ petitioner (now deceased) was appointed as the Assistant Teacher of Labpur Gadallal High School, Birbhum on January 18, 1999. Thereafter, he was transferred from there to Shondanga High School at District Nadia. While serving in the school at Nadia, the said Assistant Teacher breathed his last on January 13, 2002. 4) It has been stated in the writ petition that at the time of his death, the said Assistant Teacher left as his legal and successor, the following persons namely, his mother, two sisters and the original writ petitioner that is, his brother. In the writ petition it has been stated that the Assistant Teacher (now deceased) was the sole bread earner of the family and the entire family as above stated, was dependent on him. 5) It has further been stated that wife of the said Assistant Teacher has contracted her second marriage on March 12, 2003. Thus, she no longer belonged to the family of the said Assistant Teacher (now deceased). The mother of the deceased person has made an application before the school Authority praying for grant of family pension in her favour. By providing supporting document, it has been stated further that the school Authority has forwarded the same to the respondent No. 3/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Nadia on May 9, 2012. It has been submitted that the respondent authority has never acted upon the said application for grant of family pension, till date. 6) The mother of the deceased Assistant Teacher has also died on May 19, 2014. The original writ petitioner thereafter filed his representation before the Authority on April 16, 2017 with his prayer for grant of gratuity, provident fund and other service benefit of the deceased brother of him and the family pension. 6) The mother of the deceased Assistant Teacher has also died on May 19, 2014. The original writ petitioner thereafter filed his representation before the Authority on April 16, 2017 with his prayer for grant of gratuity, provident fund and other service benefit of the deceased brother of him and the family pension. Allegedly, the said representation has also remained unattended till date. 7) The original writ petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he obtained a succession certificate from the competent Court on November 13, 2017. However, in spite of producing all the necessary documents before the concerned respondent Authority no action has ever been taken thereupon in order to disburse the provident fund, gratuity or other terminal benefits and the family pension in favour of the said writ petitioner. Hence, the first writ petition was filed by the said original writ petitioner being No. W.P. 17359 (W) of 2017. The Court in its order dated June 22, 2018, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the respondent Authority to consider petitioner’s prayer as above. 8) Record has further revealed that, vide a letter dated December 13, 2019, the Headmaster of the school has informed the original writ petitioner to answer the following queries raised by the Assistant Director of Accounts, Secondary Education, Nadia, in connection with his prayer. The queries are as follows:- “1. The deceased Teacher’s mother Smt Namita Chatterjee was not fully dependent upon her son as she received Monthly Pension. In April, 2014 she received Rs. 8283/ - as monthly Pension, which contravenes the Order No: 2709 - F. dt: 27.7.2001 to become eligible for family pension. 2. Justify how the deceased teacher started his new Basic Pay at Rs. 4950/ - on 16.05.2001 though previously he was given Hons scale and then appointed on Pass Graduate scale. Justify how last Basic Pay was fixed on Rs. 5100/-. 3. The deceased teacher was appointed on Work Education Group at Labpur Jadablal High School, how he was allowed Hons Graduate Scale, show G.O. 4. Observations raised by Asst. Director, DPPG, WB against Point No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 not complied.” 9) Mr. Justify how last Basic Pay was fixed on Rs. 5100/-. 3. The deceased teacher was appointed on Work Education Group at Labpur Jadablal High School, how he was allowed Hons Graduate Scale, show G.O. 4. Observations raised by Asst. Director, DPPG, WB against Point No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 not complied.” 9) Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the queries raised by the respondent as above pertains to the official service record of the deceased Assistant Teacher and the petitioner would not be in a position to satisfy those. In such circumstances, requesting the original writ petitioner to answer the queries as above is only unreasonable and inappropriate. He has submitted further that, admittedly, the original writ petitioner being the brother of the deceased Assistant Teacher is the legal heir and successor of the said deceased person and as such is entitled to receive the service benefits and family pension on the occasion of death of the said person while in service. He has further submitted that the wife of the deceased person being no longer a member of the family, is not entitled to and has not raised any objection as to the said rights of the writ petitioner. Furthermore, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that after obtaining a succession certificate from the competent Court, the original writ petitioner is legally declared to be the heir and successor of the deceased Assistant Teacher. As such, there should not have been any impediment for the respondent Authority to disburse the terminal benefits like gratuity and provident fund and the family pension in favour of the petitioner. 10) Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, learned Advocate has represented the state respondent in the instant case. Mr. Shahi largely relied on the provision under West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981. He has relied on Clause 5(s) of the said Scheme of 1981 which defines the word “family”. With reference to the definition as above, Mr. Shahi has submitted that a brother is not a “family” of the deceased teacher, in accordance with the said Scheme. Therefore, according to Mr. Shahi, the original petitioner or the present petitioner should not be considered as entitled to family pension allowable to other category of members in the family of the deceased Assistant Teacher. Shahi has submitted that a brother is not a “family” of the deceased teacher, in accordance with the said Scheme. Therefore, according to Mr. Shahi, the original petitioner or the present petitioner should not be considered as entitled to family pension allowable to other category of members in the family of the deceased Assistant Teacher. On behalf of the respondent State, Mr. Shahi has sought for dismissal of this writ petition for the reason that the petitioner has no legal right to be granted with the relief as prayed for. 11) The prayer of the original petitioner may be divided in two parts. The original writ petitioner has prayed for the terminal benefits of the deceased teacher like gratuity and provident fund, to be released in his favour. On the other hand, he has also prayed for grant of family pension as per Rules applicable, on the ground that the deceased person was the sole bread earner of the family and the other family members including the original writ petitioner were dependent on him. 12) The provisions under the Scheme of 1981 pertains to death-cum-retirement benefit of an Assistant Teachers. So far as the benefits of provident fund accumulation of the Assistant Teacher (now deceased), the legal heir and successor of the deceased person should be entitled to the same, in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondent Authority if comes to a finding that the original writ petitioner or any of his successor is the sole legal heir of the said deceased Assistant Teacher, there would not be any impediment for the said respondent Authority to disburse the amount of provident fund in favour of the said legal heir and successor of the deceased teacher. 13) So far as grant of family pension is concerned, that would be governed as per Clause 5(s) of the Scheme of 1981 which is as follows:- “5 (s) "Family" includes the following relatives of an employee namely (1) For the purpose of a death gratuity (i) wife in the case of a male employee (ii) husband in the case of a female employee (iii) sons including step sons (iv) unmarried and widowed daughters including step daughters (v) adopted sons/daughters (vi) brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried or widowed sisters (vii) father (viii) mother (2) For the purpose of a family pension (i) wife in the case of a male employee (ii) husband in the case of a female employee (iii) minor sons including adopted sons (iv) unmarried minor daughters including adopted daughters (v) dependant parents. Note: Adoption or marriage after retirement will not be recognised for the purpose of family pension. 14) Therefore, on careful perusal of Clause 5(s) of the Scheme of 1981, it is found that brother of the deceased teacher has not been categorized therein as the competent person/relative of the concerned teacher to be entitled either to gratuity or to the family pension. Clause 5(s)(1)(vi) has mentioned brother of the deceased person below the age of 18 years, to be entitled as a relative of the deceased employee, to the amount of death gratuity. The Rule as above being the beneficial piece of legislation has to be given widest connotation. Minor brothers have been treated as entitled to the death gratuity in case of death of the person, for the reason of his incapacity to secure independent earning due to his immature age. Therefore, the purpose is to provide gratuity as the financial aid to a person who is not capable to earn independently for himself due to his incapacity, he being an under-aged person. 15) Incapacity of the original petitioner does not admittedly lies due to his being under aged but due to his physically disablement. Therefore, the purpose is to provide gratuity as the financial aid to a person who is not capable to earn independently for himself due to his incapacity, he being an under-aged person. 15) Incapacity of the original petitioner does not admittedly lies due to his being under aged but due to his physically disablement. On consideration of the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 3/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Nadia, the Court finds no challenge as to the averment made in the writ petition, that the original writ petitioner was incapacitated to earn due to his physical inability That being so and keeping in mind the purpose for which the Scheme of 1981 should be utilized, this Court is of considered opinion that the incapacity of the original writ petitioner to earn independently for maintenance of himself and the family brings him within the purview of the definition as provided under Clause 5(s) of the Scheme of 1981. Therefore, so far as the gratuity amount as accumulated in favour of the deceased Assistant Teacher, the Court finds that the original writ petitioner should have been considered as entitled to the said gratuity amount in the event of death of his brother, the Assistant Teacher (now deceased). 16) So far as the family pension is concerned, as per Clause 5(s)(2) of the Scheme of 1981, a brother is not to be considered as eligible therefor, in the event of death of a teacher. In this particular case, during pendency of the writ petition the original writ petitioner who happened to be the brother of the deceased Assistant Teacher has also died. In this case, his wife has been substituted as the petitioner. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Rules, the wife of the brother of the deceased teacher would not be considered to be eligible of the family pension in accordance with the said scheme. 17) The Court is, therefore, constrained to find that so far as the family pension is concerned, in the event of death of mother of the deceased Assistant Teacher there is no relative eligible to be granted with the family pension in accordance with the applicable Rules as prescribed vide the Scheme of 1981. 17) The Court is, therefore, constrained to find that so far as the family pension is concerned, in the event of death of mother of the deceased Assistant Teacher there is no relative eligible to be granted with the family pension in accordance with the applicable Rules as prescribed vide the Scheme of 1981. However, so far as the provident fund and the gratuity amount accumulated in favour of the said deceased Assistant Teacher is concerned, the substituted writ petitioner, upon proof of her legal heirship, should be considered as entitled to the same. 18) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part with the directions as follows:- i) The substituted writ petitioner is entitled to the provident fund and gratuity amount accumulated in favour of the Assistant Teacher (now deceased); ii) The respondent No. 3/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Nadia is directed to disburse the provident fund and gratuity amount in favour of the substituted writ petitioner, subject to her furnishing proof of her succession and legal heirship; iii) The substituted writ petitioner shall not be entitled for payment of family pension; iv) The exercise as above should be concluded by the respondent No. 3 within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of communication of copy of this judgment. 19) This writ petition No. WP 4197 (W) of 2020 is disposed of. 20) Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.