Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 14677 of 2026 Asgar Ali Sekh versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Dibyendu Nandi For Kolkata Municipal Corpn. : Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee Mr. Arijit Dey Heard on : 16.07.2026 & 21.07.2026. Judgment on : 21.07.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to immediately take steps and grant family pension with arrears upon compliance of all formalities to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be a specially abled person with a 65% severe handicap. According to the petitioner, his father namely Sk. Habibur Rahaman, since deceased, was an employee of Kolkata Municipal Corporation in the post of „Majdur‟. He retired in the year 2 2005 and on the following year on November 6, 2006, a Pension Payment Order was issued. The petitioner submits that his father had been receiving regular pension until his death on Novermber 12, 2012. In support of his contention he has relied on the Pension Payment Order and the death certificate of Sk. Habibur Rahaman. Consequent upon the death of the petitioner‟s father, his mother namely Khairun Bibi started receiving family pension. Unfortunately, his mother died on April 27, 2022. According to the petitioner, he had suffered a major brain stroke on April 9, 2018 and after prolonged treatment at the institute of Neuro Science, he was declared 65% handicap. He has no personal income to maintain himself, no one to look after for and is unable to maintain his livelihood. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the amended Regulation 25A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1982. (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation), whereby a provision has been made for the children of KMC employees who are suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled or have become unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years to be entitled to family pension as may be sanctioned subject to fulfillment of condition noted therein. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on Circular No. Ch. Manager/Pen/Cir/010/2007-08 dated February 22, 2008. 3 4. Although the petitioner had made a representation before the Medical Accountant, Pension Cell by communication in writing dated February 22, 2008 his case has not been considered. 5. Mr. Chatterjee appears for the municipality and has placed before this Court a bunch of documents, inter alia, including the communication dated March 5, 2024 addressed to the petitioner. A perusal of such communication would demonstrate that the municipality had communicated the rejection of petitioner‟s application for family pension. 6. Mr. Chatterjee has also drawn attention of this Court to the relevant clause. He submits that since in the instant case there was no disclosure in the service book of the concerned employee as regards the condition of disability of the petitioner, his case was not favourably considered. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and going by the materials on record including the note sheet as disclosed, I find that the petitioner had become disabled subsequent to the demise of his father. The fact that the petitioner is disabled and is the son of the deceased employee is not under challenge. The rejection is on the ground that the disability is not from the childhood and that his parents did not declare his disability. On this score, I am of the view, simply because his name was not recorded in the service book as a disabled dependant cannot disentitle the petitioner to be entitled to the benefit, as Regulation 25A of the said Regulation does not casts such restrictions. 4 To morefully appreciate the same, the relevant Regulation is extracted hereinbelow : “25A- Children of a KMC employee who is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled also render him or her unable to earn a living even after attainment of the age of majority (25 years) for the purpose of admissibility of family pension, family pension may be sanctioned subject to fulfillment of the following conditions : a) If such son or daughter is one among two or more children the family pension is initially payable to the minor children as per rules until the last minor child attains the maximum age as prescribed under DCRB Regulations and thereafter family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/her for life b) If there are more than one such son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid to them in equal share c) The family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through their guardian as if he or she was a minor d) Before allowing family pension for life to any son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy himself that the handicapped is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate from a medical officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon setting out as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child. e) The person receiving the family pension as guardian of such son or daughter shall produce every three years a certificate 5 from a medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled. f) The disability as mentioned above when manifests itself to the child which makes him/her unable to earn his/her living, the fact should be brought to the notice of the pension sanctioning authority duly supported by medical certificate issued by a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled.” 8. This apart, there is no challenge to the status of the petitioner either as regards the extent of his disablement or with regard to the fact that he is unable to support himself. There is also no challenge to the relationship of the petitioner with that of the deceased employee. As fairly pointed out by Mr. Chatterjee, a medical Board was also constituted by the municipality. The Board had examined the petitioner, verified the documents and had noted on examination that his locomotor deficit is stated to be permanent and extend up to 65%. The medical certificate verified from the original was found to be genuine and in order. To morefully appreciate the same, the relevant report of the medical Board is extracted hereinbelow : “Asgar Ali s/o Late Khairam Bibi appeared before the Medical Board on 12.07.2023. On examination it is seen that he is suffering from weakness of right sided limbs, and needs other’s help for his regular daily activities. He has submitted a disability certificate from Kolkata National Medical College & Hospital dated 27.23.2022 where it is stated that he is suffering from “Old CVA with right hemipleagia”. His locomotor deficit is 6 stated to be permanent and extend up to 65%. The certificate is verified from the original and is found to be genuine and in order.” 9. In light of the above, I am of the view that the municipality ought to be taken into consideration this aspect and ought not to have acted mechanically in rejecting the petitioner‟s application. Regulation 25A of the said Regulation has been inserted with the beneficial object. Denying the benefit of such regulation to the petitioner would defeat the very object for which the same was inserted. Accordingly, the municipal authorities are directed to revisit their order and to take a decision as regards the petitioner‟s entitlement to family pension having regard to the observations made hereinabove. A decision in this regard must be taken by the municipal authorities as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. As a sequel the rejection order stands set aside. 10. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) tkm A.R. (Court)