21.07.2026 Sl. No.15 Ct. No.14 Ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 21814 of 2025 Kajol Rani Jana Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kamal Mishra Mr. Biswarup Biswas Mr. Gourav Das …for the Petitioner Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Asit Kumar De …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks for direction upon the respondent authorities for disbursement of family pension in favour of the petitioner being the second wife upon setting aside/ revocation of the order under Memo being No.33/PEN/PE dated 17th April, 2025 of the District Inspector of Schools (PE), South 24-Parganas, respondent no.5, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of family pension. 3. The petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of Parvatipur Uttar Mahendrapur F.P. School, who retired from service on superannuation on 31st March, 2006. Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the petitioner’s husband on 16th May, 2007. The husband of the petitioner died on 4th March, 2022. Upon demise of the deceased employee, first wife namely, Rajabala Jana was drawing family pension till her 2 death, i.e. on 18th August, 2023. The petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee. The petitioner is also a retired teacher and now she is drawing pension. After the death of the first wife of the deceased employee, the petitioner being the second wife of the deceased employee made a representation on 8th April, 2025 claiming family pension. However, the same was rejected by respondent no.5, District Inspector of Schools (PE), South 24-Parganas vide order dated 17th April, 2025 on the ground that as per Hindu Marriage Act if the first wife is alive, then the second marriage is not valid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of respondent no.5, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Kamal Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule 26 of the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit (in short, ‘DCRB’) Scheme, 1981 the second wife is entitled to get family pension and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submits that the Memorandum of Financial Department, Audit Branch vide No.8252-F dated 29th July, 1988 records that under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, second marriage solemnized during the lifetime of first wife is void, hence, the second wife is not a legitimate heir to be entitled to pensionary 3 benefits including family pension. Thus, the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools (PE), South 24-Parganas dated 17th April, 2025 does not call for interference. 6. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the only issue which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner being the second wife of the deceased employee is entitled family pension or not. 7. In order to examine the aforementioned issue it would be apposite to reproduce Rule 26 of DCRB Scheme, 1981 which applies in case of primary school teacher as hereunder : “26. Period during which family pension is admissible. Subject to the following conditions, the family pension shall be admissible – (a) in the case of widow/widower up to the date of death or re- marriage, whichever is earlier; (b) in the case of minor son, until he attains the age of 18 years; (c) in the case of unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 21 years or marriage, whichever is earlier; (d) in the case of dependent parents up to the date of their death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier. < Note : Where an employee is survived by more than one widow, the family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. On the death of widow, her share of the pension shall become payable to her eligible minor children. If at the time of her death a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension shall cease.” 8. Upon bare perusal of the aforesaid rule and the note it is quite clear that an employee survived by more than one widow, the family pension shall be paid to them in equal share. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the second wife is entitled to family pension. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools (PE), South 24-Parganas dated 17th April, 2025 is set aside. 4 10. Accordingly, the respondent no.5, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E), South 24 Parganas is directed to grant family pension in favour of the petitioner from the date following the date of death of the first wife of the deceased employee taking into consideration the note to Rule 26 of DCRB Scheme, 1981, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to respondent no. 5, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E), South 24 Parganas, for necessary compliance. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition being WPA 21814 of 2025 is disposed of. 13. Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 14. Consequently, connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 15. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. 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.)