Form No. J.(2)

Item No. 6

AB

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

W.P.A. 18132 of 2025

Lakshmi Rani Maity

Vs.

Kolkata Port Trust & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. S. P. Dalapati Ld. Advocate

Mr. Pritam Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate Mr. Tamal Taru Panda, Ld. Advocate

Mr. Sourav Mondal, Ld. Advocate

For Kolkata Port Trust : Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Ld. Sr. Advocate

Mr. Dipak R. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

Heard on : October 28, 2025 Judgment on : : October 28, 2025

Aniruddha Roy, J.

On the prayer of Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for Kolkata Port Trust Authority, time to file affidavit-in-opposition stands extended till today. The affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court today is

kept on record. Copy has been served upon the petitioner.

Mr. S. P. Dalapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on

instruction from his client, submits that the petitioner shall not use any

affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition and shall proceed on the basis of existing record.

Accordingly, this Court proceeds for final consideration of the writ petition.

The writ petitioner claims to be the second wife of the deceased employee of Kolkata Port Trust, who died on July 11, 2006, claims family pension and release of gratuity. The deceased employee died in-harness. The admitted fact is that, the name of the petitioner appears in the service record of the deceased employee as nominee. The employer Port Trust has raised dispute with regard to the correct spelling of her name. The Provident Fund amount on account of deceased employee has already been released in favour of the petitioner by the employer Port Trust without any objection or demur.

The reason for withholding the gratuity amount and family pension is that the death certificate of the first wife of the deceased employee was not produced by the present writ petitioner being the second wife. The plea taken by Kolkata Port Trust that in absence of production of the said death certificate of the first wife, the actual marital status of the present writ petitioner could not be ascertained whether she is the lawful second wife of the deceased employee.

Referring to a Civil Court decree, annexure P-14 at page 36 to the writ petition Mr. S. P. Dalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha, the jurisdictional Civil Court has already been granted a declaration in favour of the writ petitioner declaring her to be the lawful second wife of the deceased employee. The said Civil Court decree was looked upon on the judicial side in a writ petition by a co-ordinate bench when the co-ordinate bench by its order dated January 21, 2020, annexure P-18 at page 50 to the writ petition expressed its view that, the Court was not satisfied that the compromise decree constitutes an appropriate declaration that the original wife is legally dead or that the marriage of the petitioner was validly solemnized with the deceased.

Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Senior advocate appearing for the Kolkata Port Trust authority, on instruction from his clients, submits that, at a later stage the writ petitioner has produced the death certificate of the first wife which is required to be verified by the appropriate authority.

From sub-paragraph (i) to paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Port Trust Authority, it appears that the authority has admitted the writ petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, admittedly the name of the writ petitioner is there on the service record as the nominee of the deceased employee and accepting such nomination the employer has already released the Provident Fund without any objection. The nomination is still valid.

It is also true that a nominee cannot receive the family pension.

Family pension can only be received by the appropriate legal heir of the dece