10.11.2025 Sl. No.4(DL)

Ct. No.7

srm

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

W.P.A. No. 16665 of 2025

Utpal Sen

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sourav Mitra,

Ms. Pritikana Gantait,

Adv. Sudipta Maiti …for the Petitioner.

Mr. Amita Ghosh,

Ms. Aniruddha Sen

…for the State.

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for

cancellation and/or withdrawal of Memo No.763/P dated 22^nd August, 2024 (Annexure P-9 to the application) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for grant of family pension was rejected by the respondent No.4, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim

Medinipur.

2. The petitioner contends that he is a handicapped son

of late Tulsi Charan Sen, ex-Assistant Teacher of Basudevpur Primary School under District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur. The father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 24^th February, 1963. The mother of the petitioner was granted family pension. The petitioner’s mother died on 12^th April, 2013. Upon

demise of his mother the petitioner being handicapped son of the ex-employee applied before the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur for grant of family pension. Since the prayer of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WPA 11196 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following direction:

“In those circumstances, the concerned District Inspector of Schools (P.E.) shall consider the petitioner’s representation afresh enclosing the details of the pension payment order of his late father and other documents prescribed in the said Circular within a period of fifteen days from date.”

3. Pursuant to such direction, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of family pension was considered and rejected by the respondent No.4, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur by the impugned order on the ground that there is no provision of sanctioning pension in favour of disabled son as Pre-81 case. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Sourav Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner referring to the decision of the Larger Bench passed in the State of West Bengal in State of West Bengal & Ors. versus Sabita Roy (In Re: MAT 1518 of 2019) submits that the law is now well settled that a teaching and non-teaching staff who retired prior to 1^st April, 1981 or after 1^st April, 1981 was entitled to get the pensionary benefits in terms of the DCRB Scheme, 1981. The unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter of an employee who retired prior to 1^st April, 1981 or after 1^st April, 1981 is entitled to get family pension on fulfilment of the requirements of Memorandum No.96-SE dated 13^th April, 2010. By Memorandum dated 5^th September, 2005 the family pension is also extended in favour of son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled. Thus, the petitioner being a handicapped son of deceased employee is entitled to receive family pension. He seeks for setting aside of the impugned order dated 22^nd August, 2024 passed by the respondent No.4, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur and for issuance of pension payment order in favour of the petitioner. To buttress his contention, he relies on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Anupam Das Chakraborty versus the State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: WPA 22029 of 2023)

5. Ms. Amita Ghosh, learned Advocate for the State, leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.

6. In Sabita Roy (supra) the Full Bench of this Court observed as follows:

“18. We have no hesitation in mind to hold that the unaltered or unaffected Memoranda as above clearly demonstrate in unequivocal terms that a teaching and non-teaching staff who retired prior to 1st April, 1981 or after 1 April. 1981 was entitled to get the pensionary benefits in terms of the DCRB S