Judgment :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. Report filed by the State furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Malda dated 16^th February, 2026 is taken on record.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside and/or quashing of and/or withdrawal of the impugned order dated 9^th December, 2025 passed by respondent no. 5, the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Malda (Annexure P/5) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of entire family pension.

3. The petitioner’s husband retired from service on superannuation on 1^st January, 1992 and expired on 30^th July, 2003. At the time of death, the husband of the petitioner was survived by three wives. The family pension was released in favour of the surviving three wives in equal shares. Subsequent thereto, the first wife, namely, Anwara Khatun died on 9^th August, 2003 and the second wife, namely, Afroza Khatun died on 13^th September, 2017. Neither the first nor the second wife left behind any minor child. Upon demise of the second wife, the divorcee daughter of the second wife namely Meherun Nessa made a representation before the authority concerned seeking share of family pension which was earlier released in favour of her mother. After demise of the second wife, the entire family pension was initially released in favour of the present petitioner. However, subsequent thereto, such payment has been discontinued and the petitioner was directed to refund the family pension of the second wife. Since the petitioner did not refund the amount, the respondent authorities stopped her pension and started process of recovery of the payments already made. The petitioner made a representation requesting the concerned respondent not to take any amount from the share of the family pension. Since the prayer of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPA 17428 of 2023 which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21^st August, 2024 directing the concerned respondents to consider the said representation and take a reasoned decision thereon. Pursuant thereto, on 8^th April, 2025, a reasoned order was passed by the respondent authorities concerned holding that the present petitioner is not eligible to receive the pension of other two wives after their demise. Aggrieved by such decision, the petitioner again filed a writ petition being WPA 9896 of 2025.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 31^st October, 2025 by passing the following order:

“The matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to revisit the issue and take a fresh decision upon due consideration of the notification vide No. 54-F (Pen) dated 13th January, 1997, and in the light of the decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. If, upon such reconsideration, the District Inspector of Schools finds merit in the petitioner's claim, necessary follow-up action shall be taken, which shall include payment of the full family pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of death of the second wife, and release of the amount, if already recovered from her. In the event the District Inspector of Schools finds that the petitioner's claim is without substance, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. Again by a reasoned order dated 9^th December, 2025, the prayer of the petitioner was turned down holding that she is not eligible for the shares of other two wives after their demise. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

6. Mr. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits, at the very outset, that in the earlier round of litigation being WPA 9896 of 2025 a Co- ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda t