Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1117
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, SHAMPA SARKAR, RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, JJ.
The Sate of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sabita Roy – Respondent
MAT No. 1518 of 2019, MAT No. 608 of 2021, IA No. CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 10437 of 2019), IA No. CAN 2 of 2021
Decided On : 20-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anirban Ray, Kakali Samajpati, Suman Dey, Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Surendra Kumar Sharma.
For the Respondents: Sourav Mitra, Biswarup Biswas, Shreyashi Chowdhury, Salil Kumar Maity, Pinky Saha, S.K. Sharma, Chandar Dutta,
The benefit of family pension can be extended to unmarried/widowed daughters of employees who retired or died prior to the implementation of the DCRB Scheme, 1981, based on the interpretation of various government memoranda and orders that extended the scope of the scheme to include such categories of dependents.
Headnote:
FAMILY PENSION - UNMARRIED/WIDOWED DAUGHTER - DCRB SCHEME, 1981 - APPLICABILITY: Whether the benefit of family pension can be extended to unmarried/widowed daughter of an employee who superannuated or died prior to coming in force of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981, which came into effect on and from 1st April, 1981.
Fact of the Case:
The reference arose from three mandamus appeals and a writ petition involving the issue of extending family pension benefits to unmarried/widowed daughters of employees who retired or died prior to the implementation of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme (DCRB Scheme), 1981. The petitioners, unmarried or widowed daughters, sought family pension after their fathers, who were employees of recognized non-government educational institutions, passed away before the DCRB Scheme came into effect.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the benefit of family pension could be extended to unmarried/widowed daughters of employees who superannuated or died prior to the coming into force of the DCRB Scheme, 1981. The court interpreted various government memoranda and orders issued over time, which extended the scope of the DCRB Scheme to include employees who retired before 1981, their widows, and unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters.
Issues: 1. Whether the benefit of family pension can be extended to unmarried/widowed daughters of employees who retired or died prior to the implementation of the DCRB Scheme, 1981? 2. Interpretation of various government memoranda and orders related to the extension of pensionary benefits to different categories of employees and their dependents.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principle established in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, which held that pensioners constitute a homogenous class and any classification within this class based on the date of retirement is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The court interpreted the various government memoranda and orders, including Memorandum No. 163-Edn dated 15.06.1990, Memorandum No. 39-SE dated 10th January, 2008, Memorandum No. 95(80)-SE dated 13.04.2010, and Memorandum No. 96-SE dated 13th April, 2010, to conclude that the pensionary benefits were extended not only to employees who retired prior to 1981 but also to their widows, unmarried daughters, widowed daughters, and divorced daughters.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference by holding that the benefit of family pension could be extended to unmarried/widowed daughters of employees who superannuated or died prior to the coming into force of the DCRB Scheme, 1981. The court directed the respective benches to dispose of the mandamus appeals and the writ petition in accordance with this answer.
JUDGMENT :
RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.
1. The aforesaid matters have been referred to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to answer the following reference:
“Whether the benefit of family pension can be extended to unmarried/widowed daughter of an employee who superannuated or died prior to coming in force of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981, which came into effect on and from 1st April, 1981.”
2. Initially, by an order dated April 26, 2022 passed in MAT No. 1518 of 2019 (State of West Bengal and Others vs. Sabita Roy) the reference as above was made by a Division Bench (in which one of us, Rabindranath Samanta, J. was a member).
Thereafter, another Division Bench while hearing MAT No. 608 of 2021 (The Director of Pension and Others vs. Smt. Kabita Sinha and Another), by an order dated 4th July, 2022 upon observing that since a reference had been made by a Division Bench and was awaiting an answer from a Larger Bench as to whether benefit of family pension could be extended to unmarried/ widowed daughter of an employee who superannuated or died prior to coming in force of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981, also referred the matter to a Larger Bench.
3. On the other hand, a learned Single Bench while hearing a writ petition being W.P 25396 (W) of 2017 to decide an issue whether an unmarried daughter of a deceased Assistant Teacher was entitled to family pension or not, the learned Single Bench observed that since a similar reference had been made by Division Bench and was awaiting a decision from a larger Bench, adjourned the matter sine die till the larger Bench decided the matter.
4. The facts giving rise to mandamus appeals being MAT 1518 of 2019 and MAT 608 of 2021 and the writ application, briefly, are as under:
MAT 1518 of 2019 has arisen out an order whereby the respondent/writ petitioner Sabita Roy had been allowed family pension by a learned Single Judge. Sabita Roy claimed family pension as a widowed daughter of a deceased Assistant Teacher namely Debobrata Roy who retired from service on 31st March, 1979 and died on 31st December, 1991. After his demise, no family pension was granted to the mother of the petitioner. However, the retiral dues of her deceased father were disbursed in equal share amongst his legal heirs. The writ petitioner became widowed on 20.07.2008, but before her mother died on 9th March, 2012. She applied for family pension to the concerned authority, but her prayer was disallowed. Challenging the order by which her prayer for family pension was disallowed, she preferred the writ petition being W.P. 1984(W) of 2017 and by order dated 8th April, 2019, the writ petition was disposed of directing the concerned state authority to grant family pension to her.
MAT 608 of 2021 was preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 9th December, 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge by which the respondent/writ petitioner Kabita Sinha, was allowed family pension as a widowed daughter. It is her case, her father who was an approved clerk of a high school retired from service on 1st April, 1970 and died on 15th April, 1976. After his retirement, the petitioner’s mother received family pension in terms of the Government Circular dated 15th June, 1990. Her mother died on 5th December, 2008. The petitioner was widowed on 25th May, 1987 before her mother died. She made an application to the authority concerned claiming family pension, but her prayer was refused by the Director of School Education in December 2011 followed by an order of the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance on 21st September, 2013. Being aggrieved thereby, she filed writ petition being W.P. No. 7741(W) of 2018. By the judgment and order dated 9th December, 2019 the learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned authority to extend pensionary benefits to her, provided she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for grant of such pension.
5. On the other hand, the petitioner Shyamal
