19/08 2026 AD/32/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/16474/2023 BIBEKANANDA BERA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Ms. Arunima Laha, Advocate Mr. Subhamoy Patra, Advocate Ms. Mahuya Maity, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. Government Pleader Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Joy Ranjan Dhar, Advocate ……for the State 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, especially those contained in the order dated 26.09.2023, the Block Medical Officer of Health (BMOH) has passed a reasoned order on 31.10.2023, a copy whereof has been handed up by the petitioner and is kept on record. 2. Mr. Roy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents, does not dispute the authenticity and veracity of this order. 3. The petitioner's grievance with which he had approached this Court emanated from the authority's refusal to treat him as the nominee and give him the terminal benefits which had accrued in favor of his aunt, who had thereafter expired on 01.11.2013. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the concerned authority (BMOH) had given a hearing to the petitioner, considered all documents, and passed the order of 31.10.2023. 5. The principal reason to deny the petitioner the dues, was the apparent discrepancies in the P a g e | 2 duplicate Service Book which had been given by the petitioner to the authority and a photocopy which has been relied upon by the petitioner of the very same Service Book. 6. The duplicate Service Book at page 3 is blank insofar as serial numbers 9, 10, 11 and 12 are concerned, which the petitioner was unable to satisfy at the time of hearing. 7. On the other hand, a photocopy of the very same page annexed at page 66 of this writ-petition reveals the name of the petitioner as the nominee against serial numbers 9, 10 and 11 and the name of the deceased employee against serial number 12. The discrepancy is apparent and overbearing. 8. The petitioner's case has also been duly considered by the authority inasmuch as the petitioner could have been treated as an heir and legal representative of the deceased employee and handed over the terminal benefits which had accrued to such employee. However, this could not be done in view of the fact that the petitioner was unable to produce the requisite succession certificate to establish his status and eligibility as the heir and legal representative of the deceased employee. 9. I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 31.10.2023. 10. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to obtain the requisite succession certificate from the jurisdictional Court/Authority concerned and present the same to the concerned officer for P a g e | 3 reagitating his claim to the entitlements of the deceased employee, not as a nominee, but as her heir and legal representative. 11. With the afore-stated direction, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)