14th JULY, 2026 Item no.M/L 669 Court No. 24 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 11754 of 2022 In the matter of: Pijush Kumar Chakraborty …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Lal Ratan Mondal Ms. Sk. Kiran ….Advocates 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the son of a deceased school teacher with the allegation that the Pension Payment Order which was issued in favour of the teacher is incorrect. 3. The teacher, that is, the father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 6th November, 1987 and the Pension Payment Order was issued in his favour on 9th August, 2011 to the mother of the petitioner who was alive at that point of time. She accepted the Pension Payment Order and the benefits thereunder. She expired on 10th March, 2019. 4. After the expiry of his mother, the petitioner suddenly realized that there was an error in the Pension Payment Order. 5. The petitioner through his legal representative filed a representation before the authority in May, 2022 praying for correction to be made in the Pension Payment Order and has filed the instant writ petition seeking for a direction upon the authority to consider the said representation. Page 2 6. Submission of the petitioner is that the PPO has been incorrectly issued under ROPA, 2009. The same ought to have been issued under ROPA, 2019. 7. The Court has heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Learned advocate representing the petitioner is not able to satisfy the Court as to why the mother of the petitioner never objected before the authority had there been any defect in the Pension Payment Order which was issued in the year 2011. 9. The mother of the petitioner was alive till March, 2019. No objection was raised by her, at any point of time, questioning the correctness of the Pension Payment Order. 10. In May, 2022 the son of the deceased teacher made representation allegedly pointing out defects in the Pension Payment Order. 11. The said action of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. The prayer of the petitioner seeking direction upon the respondent authority for consideration of the legal representation made on behalf of the petitioner seeking correction of the Pension Payment Order cannot be allowed at such a delayed point of time. 13. It has to be taken that the widow of the deceased employee waived her right to any objection with regard to the incorrectness, if any, of the Pension Payment Order. 14. Be it recorded that from the Pension Payment Order, it appears that the employee was in service for only eight years and eleven months. As the employee failed to acquire the qualifying service period, no pension was payable in his favour. The retiring gratuity has only been released in favour of the deceased employee. Page 3 15. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all the requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)