IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :-

The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul And The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPCT 164 of 2025 Laila Begum -Vs-

The Union of India and others For the petitioners: Mr. Atanu Biswas Mr. Mrinal Saha Mr. Sourav Saha For the BSNL: Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh For the Union of India: Mr. Ajay Chaubey Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty For the respondent nos.7 to 9: Mr. Kalidas Saha Ms. Khushi Mollick Heard on : 16.12.2025 Judgment on : 16.12.2025 SUJOY PAUL, A.C.J. : –

1. This petition filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench dated 22.05.2025 passed in O.A. 350/728/2022, whereby claim of family pension of the petitioner/widow of deceased employee was rejected by the Tribunal.

Factual Backdrop:

2. The petitioner claims that she was married to Md. Irshad Ali on 09.05.1998 and said marriage was registered in the Muslim Marriage Registrar & Kazi at Katwa. Consequently, the marriage registration certificate was issued. The case of the petitioner is that out of said wedlock with Md. Irshad Ali, their son Sahadat Hossain was born on 11.05.2000. Md. Irshad Ali died on 10.03.2015 and petitioner preferred a representation dated 16.04.2015 before the BSNL for grant of family pension due to death of her husband Late Md. Irshad Ali.

3. The petitioner also came to know that one Anowara Begum was in close relationship with her husband prior to death of their marriage registration. However, she expressed doubt whether marriage with her was a valid marriage. Admittedly, Anowara Begum passed away on 09.07.2021.

4. Since petitioner’s representation for grant of pensionary benefits could not fetch any result, she filed O.A. 753/2016 before the Tribunal and Tribunal directed the department to consider and decide her representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. A hearing was given to the petitioner by the department wherein she filed various documents which are marked by department itself on 05.03.2019 (Annexure A-12). After hearing, by speaking order dated 29.01.2020, the petitioner’s claim was rejected. This compelled the petitioner to file instant O.A. which came to be decided by impugned order dated 22.05.2025. The Tribunal having recorded rival contentions, rejected the claim of petitioner by holding that CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is applicable for the purpose of examining the entitlement for family pension and since the petitioner has not been named in the family declaration made by the deceased employee as wife during his life time, she cannot be considered as widow and accordingly not entitled to get family pension.

Contention of petitioner:

5. Shri Atanu Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner criticised the speaking order dated 29.01.2020 by contending that the proof of marriage was produced before the authorities which are recorded by them in their proceeding order dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure A-12). This includes Aadhaar Card, Voter Identity Card, PAN Card and Ration Card of petitioner. In addition, digital copy of Certificate of Muslim Marriage (without signature) was produced along with statutory Form No.1601 of Government of West Bengal relating to “Nikahnama”. In the reasoned and speaking order, a bald finding is given that in marriage certificate dated 09.05.1998, no signature of issuing authority is available. The Form No.1601 is doubted solely on the ground that age of deceased is not tallying with the age mentioned in the service book. It is submitted that no efforts were made to examine the correctness and genuineness of Form No.1601 from the issuing authority.

6. By taking this court to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased employee died on 10.03.2015. The Rules of 2021 were not even introduced on the said date because the said Rules came into existence on its publication in the official gazette only on 20th Decem