IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :-

The Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice SUJOY PAUL

&

The Hon’ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN

WP.CT 36 OF 2025

The Union of India & Ors.

-Vs-

Mita Saha Karmakar

For the Petitioners: Mr. D.N. Ray, Sr. Adv.,

Ms. Moumita Mondal, Adv.

For the Respondent: Mr. Asim Kr. Niyogi, Adv.,

Mr. Vaskar Pal, Adv.

Hearing concluded on: 04.12.2025 Judgment on: 09.12.2025

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. In this writ petition as filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the judgement and order dated 09.10.2024 as passed in O.A./350/01165/2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said tribunal’ in short) is

assailed.

2. By the impugned order, the said tribunal set aside the reasoned order dated 25.06.2022 as passed by the writ petitioner no. 3 herein and directed

the writ petitioner no.2 herein to grant family pension to the original applicant who is the respondent before us.

3. The Union of India and its instrumentalities who are the respondents in the original application before the said tribunal felt aggrieved and filed the instant read petition.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Ray Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/authorities at the very outset submit before this court that the said tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned order in as much as the tribunal has failed to visualise that the pensioner who is the father of the original applicant died on 19.04.2013 and his spouse that is the mother of the original applicant pre-deceased her husband on 05.11. 2011.

5. It is further submitted by Mr Ray that from the materials as placed before this court as well as before the said tribunal, it would reveal that the original applicant had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage in the year 2014 and that said suit was decreed on 01.09.2016. It is the submitted by Mr. Ray that from the facts and circumstances as involved in the instant petition, it would reveal that the original applicant who is respondent before this court filed her suit for divorce against her husband much after the death of her father as well as of her mother.

6. Placing reliance upon a judgement dated 24.11.2025 as passed by this Court in WP.CT 320 of 2024 (Union of India and others versus Jayanti Chatterjee), it is argued by Mr Ray that the facts and circumstances as involved in the case of Jayanti Chatterjee (supra) are identical with the facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition in as much as the original applicant/respondent herein has failed to establish that on the day of death of her father, that is the pensioner she was anyway dependent upon him.

7. It is further argued by Mr. Ray that this Court in the case of Jayanti Chatterjee (Supra) the true implication of the memo dated 19. 07. 2017 has been elaborately interpreted and such interpretation is equally applicable in the case in hand.

8. It is further submitted by Mr Roy that based on the principles of law as enunciated in the case of Jayanti Chatterjee (supra) by this court, the instant writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 09.10.2024, as passed by the said tribunal.

9. Per contra, Mr Niyogi learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/original applicant at the very outset draws attention of this court to the copy of the original application as filed before the Tribunal. It is submitted by Mr Niyogi that from the pleadings of said original application, it would reveal that it is the case of the original applicant/respondent herein that her marriage was solemnised on 12.08.1991.

10. It is further submitted by Mr Niyogi that it is the positive assertion of the original applicant/respondent herein before the said tribunal that she was driven out from her matrimonial home by her husband and finding no other alternative, she took shelter at her paternal home on or before the year

1997.

11.