24th July, 2026 (D/L No.54) Ct. No.4 (SKB) F.M.A. 777 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Shyamali Mukherjee Versus The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee … for the appellant. Mrs. Chandreyi Alam, ld. AGP, Ms. Kakali Dutta … for the State. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant. 2. The appellant was the writ petitioner in a proceeding wherein she claimed family pension benefits claiming to be wife of a deceased government employee. The occasion for the writ petitioner/appellant to file a writ petition was based on rejection of the writ petitioner’s claim by the authorities. 3. Writ petitioner/appellant claims to be wife of one Krishna Gopal Mukherjee. The said person retired from service of the State Government in 2001. He received pensionary benefits till 10.01.2023. The learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that after retirement, the said person was alive for about 22 years and getting a benefit of pension. However, the name of the present appellant/writ petitioner was not 2 entered in any record by the said individual naming her as his wife, let alone, there being any nomination in her favour. 4. The appellant/petitioner relied upon some documents before the authorities as well as the learned Single Judge being a ration card, certificate issued by a Gram Panchayat, which were found to be documents which were not contemporaneous to the life time of the said person. 5. Before this court in appeal, it is submitted that the AADHAAR Card and the Epic Card was also submitted and from perusal of the same, it appears that those documents pre-date the demise of the person who the petitioner/appellant claims him to be her husband. 6. We find such submission to be devoid of any substance to form the basis of a claim for pension. 7. We are also shown some orders passed by the Collector wherein seven legal heirs of a deceased employee, Sakti Pada Bhattacharjee, were enumerated. The petitioner is shown as daughter of Sakti Pada Bhattacharjee. 8. The petitioner/appellant claims to be wife of Krishna Gopal Mukherjee. Therefore, the same 3 cannot be sustained from a plain reading of this order of the Collector. 9. There being no contemporaneous document based on which the petitioner’s/appellant’s can claim a pension, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the writ court. We, however, leave it to the writ petitioner/appellant to avail appropriate remedy, if she so advised, in accordance with law. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. The application bearing CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)