14.07.2026 Sl. No.7 Ct. No.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 15355 of 2025 Jayanti Jana Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subhrangsu Panda Ms. Haritri Roy Mr. Anupam Singha …for the Petitioner. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Ms. Marry Datta Ms. Manisha Paswan … for the State 1. Report filed by the State furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Paschim Medinipur dated 13th July, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities particularly, respondent no.4, the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Paschim Medinipur to sanction the family pension in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that her husband late Santosh Kumar Jana was a primary teacher of Sarba Maktab Primary School under Jahalda Circle, District Paschim Medinipur, who retired on superannuation on 30th April, 2002 after rendering service for a period of 8 years 4 months and 18 days. Subsequent to retirement the Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the 2 husband of the petitioner on 15th January, 2004 allowing only gratuity amount of Rs.42,304/- but without pension. On 10th February, 2007 the husband of the petitioner expired. On 18th June, 2025 the petitioner submitted a prayer before the respondent no.4, the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Paschim Medinipur for grant of family pension in terms of clause 23(2) of Chapter VII of West Bengal Recognized Non- Government Educational Institution Employees (Death- cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 (in short, „DCRB Scheme, 1981‟) in her favour. However, the family pension has not been granted. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the husband of the petitioner did not complete 10 years of service, however, as per clause 23(2) of the notification No.135 Edn(B) dated 15th May, 1985 of the DCRB Scheme, 1981 since the deceased employee received gratuity, the widow is entitled to family pension as per the aforesaid rules as it stood prior to amendment dated 3rd July, 2008. 5. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, learned Advocate representing the State-respondent submits that the husband of the petitioner received only gratuity amount but was not granted pension since he did not complete 10 years of service. There was no prayer made by the husband of the petitioner (the deceased employee) seeking for condonation of shortfall of service. There is unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner to seek for family 3 pension. In light of the above, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 6. At the outset, it is found that there is a delay of 18 years in submitting application seeking for family pension. Be that as it may, delay per se cannot defeat the valuable right of the petitioner. Relief may be granted to the writ petitioner in spite of the delay if it does not affect the right of third parties. (See: Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648). 7. Indisputably, the deceased husband of the petitioner was not in receipt of pension since he did not complete 10 years of service. At this juncture, the question arises as to whether in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to family pension or not. 8. In order to examine the aforesaid issue it would be apposite to reproduce the Clause 23 of the DCRB Scheme, 1981 as hereunder : “Family Pension – (1) Family pension is admissible to the member of the family of an employee who dies while in service after rendering at least one year‟s service. (2) The benefit shall also be admissible in case of death of an employee after retirement if at the time of death he was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension or gratuity.” 9. The aforesaid Rule has been amended on 3rd July, 2008, which is also reproduced hereunder: “For the existing entry in sub-para (2) of para 23, viz., „The benefit shall also be admissible in case of death of an employee after retirement if at the time of death he was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension or gratuity‟. Substitute the following entry : “The benefit shall also be admissible in case of death after retirement, if at the time of death the retired 4 employee was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. This issues in accordance with Finance Depart‟s Order No.674-F(pen) dated 30.07.2007.” 10. The husband of the petitioner died on 10th February, 2007 prior to the aforesaid amendment. Therefore, the rule, as it stood prior to amendment in the year 2008, is applicable in the case of the petitioner. As per clause 23(2) of the DCRB Scheme, 1981 the benefit of family pension shall also be admissible in case of death of an employee after retirement if at the time of death he was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension or gratuity. There is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner received gratuity. The petitioner’s husband rendered service for more than 8 years. In terms of the aforesaid Rules, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee is entitled family pension. 11. Accordingly, the respondent no.4, the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Paschim Medinipur is directed to take appropriate steps for verification of the records and forward the same to the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, respondent no.3 for issuance of family pension in favour of the petitioner from the date following the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 15355 of 2025 stands disposed of. 5 13. Petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent nos.3 and 4, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Paschim Medinipur, respectively for necessary compliance. 14. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 19. 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.)