07.07.2026 Sl. No.19(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 6109 of 2026 Smt. Lily Banerjee @ Lily Roy Chaudhury versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Gourav Das …for the Petitioner. Mr. Avinash Kankani …for the DPSC, Kolkata. Mr. Atanu Basu …for the State. 1. Report filed by the State-respondents furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Kolkata dated 3rd July, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No.4, District Inspector of Schools (PE), to process the pension file of the petitioner in terms of notification dated 13th June, 2014. 3. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Thaker’s Institution, Circle-XI under Kolkata Primary School Council on 5th April, 1976. Subsequently, she was transferred to Deshpran B.N. Institution (Boys) under Circle XI under Kolkata Primary School Council, on 9th June, 2006, where she joined on 14th June, 2006. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31st October, 2014. During her service tenure, the petitioner opted for Death-cum-Retirement Benefit (in short, ‘DCRB’) 2 Scheme, 1981. However, she did not opt for revised scale of pay under ROPA, 1990 and ROPA, 1998. The Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28th September, 2018, but only gratuity has been paid. No pension was granted to the petitioner despite exercising option to switch from Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF). The petitioner has also refunded the amount of excess salary of Rs.5812/- to the Council as per its demand on 23rd November, 2018 by way of Treasury challan. The petitioner seeks to refund the excess amount, if any, received by her in course of service, in order to avail the benefit of pension. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Gourav Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has opted for pension by switching over from CPF to GPF and has also refunded the employer’s share of Contributory Provident Fund. She has also refunded the excess salary received by her during the extended period of service till 65 years. However, she has not been granted pension. She intends to refund the amount, if any, payable to the authority concerned together with interest and additional interest in order to avail the benefit of pension. He seeks for appropriate orders. To buttress his contention he relies on the following decisions (i) Sipra Mitra versus The State of West Bengal and Ors reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) 3 (Cal) 4893; (ii) Sudhansu Sekhar Das versus The State of West Bengal and Ors reported in 2026 Supreme (Online) (Cal) 2020. 5. Mr. Atanu Basu, learned Advocate representing State- respondents as well as Mr. Avinash Kankani, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6, Kolkata DPSC submits that in the event the petitioner refund the amount payable which to be calculated by the authorities, then the authorities concerned have no objection to issue pension in favour of the petitioner under GPF Scheme. 6. It is found from treasury challan (Annexure P7 to the writ petition) that on 23rd November, 2018 the petitioner has deposited excess salary received by her amounting to Rs.5812/-. Further it reveals from the audit observation and reply contained in letter of District Inspector of Schools (PE), Kolkata being no.53/PEN dated 26th July, 2018 (Annexure P6 to the writ petition), that the petitioner opted for pension and also refunded employer’s share of CPF including accrued interest amounting to Rs.3042/- vide challan no.18094/6 dated 1st November, 2000 and Rs.1819/- vide challan no.202 dated 12th September, 2005. Such aspect has not been dealt with in the report of District Inspector of Schools (PE), Kolkata. Be that as it may, in the report it is further contended that the petitioner worked up to sixty-five years but has not refunded the salary drawn for five years during 4 extension in obedience to G.O No.7 Edn (B) 6th January, 1994 or G.O No.111 SE dated 1st August. 1996 for getting pension. During hearing it has been categorically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is willing to refund the amount, if any, payable to the concerned authority for getting pension. Such submissions have been accepted by learned advocates for the State as well as Council to the extent that if the petitioner refunds the amount payable, in such event pension can be granted in her favour. 7. In the aforesaid conspectus, the respondent No.4, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Kolkata is directed to calculate the amount, if any, which is to be refunded by the petitioner for availing the benefit of pension and intimate the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall deposit the specified amount with interest and additional interest to the Government Treasury within a period of four weeks from the date of intimation by the respondent No.4. On such compliance, respondent no. 4 shall forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the Office of respondent No.3, Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, who shall upon proper verification issue revised Pension Payment Order in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereof. The petitioner shall be granted pension from 5 the date following the date of retirement of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 6109 of 2026 stands disposed of. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.3, Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and respondent No.4, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Kolkata, for necessary compliance. 10. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)