31.08.2026 43 sdas WPA 15609 of 2025 Gayatri Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu) Mr. Kaustav Ghosh ….. for the petitioner Mr. N. C. Bihani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh ….. for the CSTC 1. The petitioner is aggrieved that she is not getting the family pension which ought to be paid to her on the death of her father, a retired employee of the respondent no. 3. The petitioner is a divorced daughter of the retired employee who expired some time in 2018. The retired employee had drawn pension during his life time from 1997, after his retirement till his death in 2018. 2. The petitioner alleges that she has been residing with her father since 2001 upon desertion by her husband. Though there is a lack of clarity as to when the divorce suit had been filed by the petitioner. Records suggest two suits of 2019 and 2021, both after the death of her father, while a submission is made that there is no suit of 2019. The first suit was of 2001 which was dismissed for default and the second suit was of 2021. 2 3. The admitted fact is that the suit for divorce filed in 2021 was decreed after 2018 i.e. after the death of the petitioner’s father. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has made the following submissions : (a) The petitioner was wholly dependent on her father from 2001, upon being deserted by her husband; (b) Being fully dependent, the petitioner is entitled to family pension in terms of the Memorandum dated November 12, 2008 which seeks to include the unmarried, widowed and divorced daughter within the definition “family” of a retired/deceased employee, thereby entitling such person to family pension; (c) The petitioner being wholly dependent on her father since 2001 thus falls within the definition of a “family member” as envisaged in the Memorandum dated November 12, 2008 and is thereby entitled to receive family pension; (d) Respondent no. 3 has also followed this Memorandum dated November 12, 2008 and by a Circular dated March 27, 2019 has brought the aforestated three categories : unmarried, divorced and widowed daughters within the domain of the term “family”; (e) The only qualifying factor is that a daughter will have to be wholly dependent on the retired 3 employee to enable her to be entitled for family pension; (f) He has also relied upon a decision of this Hon’ble Court in WPCT 36 of 2025 (The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mita Saha Karmakar). 5. Mr. Bihani, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, has made the following submissions: (a) It is true that the provision of extension of the term “family” to unmarried, widowed and divorced daughters of November 12, 2008, has been followed by the respondent no. 3 by its Circular dated March 27, 2019. However, the said construction has to be considered as on the date of death of the employee whether retired or in harness, the daughter must be of the classification as specified; (b) Any other construction would lead to an absurd situation; (c) The question of the petitioner being entitled to pension due on account of the retired employee as her father, cannot be entertained, as on the date of death of the employee, some time in 2018, there was no suit pending consideration for divorce; (d) The suit had admittedly been filed in 2021. The earlier suit of 2001 had been dismissed for default and had not been revived in any manner. Thus, 4 there was no pending proceeding seeking divorce by the petitioner on the date of her father’s death. Thus, she is completely disentitled for being considered as a family member within the specified definition of the daughters being unmarried, divorced or widowed; (e) He has placed reliance on two decisions of this Hon’ble Court. The first in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 8358 (Calcutta Dock Labour Board & Anr. Vs. Priyanka Nandi & Ors.) and second in WPCT 320 of 2024 (Union of India vs. Jayanti Chatterjee). 6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the records of this case and also considered the decisions relied upon by them. 7. The genesis of the issue as to whether a daughter is entitled to family pension on the death of her father can be traced back from the West Bengal Death-cum- Retirement Benefit Rules, 1971 (in short DCRB). The DCRB, in Rule 2 defines the members entitled to the family pension and did not include the daughters in any manner at all. This is at par with the definition of family in Rule 5 of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1990. This situation was sought to be redressed and corrected by way of Memorandum of November 12, 2008. This clarification of 2008 sought to include the daughters. 5 However, in line with a beneficial legislation, the attempt was made only to include such persons (daughters) who were incapable of taking care of themselves or they were left in penury on the death of their fathers. 8. Understandably, widowed, unmarried and divorced were thereby included in the realm of the term “family”. 9. Thus, even if the daughter of a retired employee who had expired, was entitled merely by virtue of a stature as widowed, unmarried or divorced, she would still have to show that she was dependent on her father for her financial well being. It is possible that a widowed, unmarried or divorced daughter is quite capable of taking care of herself on financial terms. Such a daughter may be well employed and financially well endowed. Thus, even if she was widowed, divorced or unmarried, she may not be financially dependent on her father or the pension that her father received. Thus, on the date of death of her father, the daughter would have to qualify and/or satisfy at least two grounds: first that she was a widowed, unmarried or divorced daughter. Second, that she was in addition to being a widowed or unmarried or divorced daughter also financially dependent on her father. Thus, a divorced, unmarried or widowed daughter, financially 6 independent, would not be entitled to pension. Likewise, a daughter who was married on the date of death of the father, even if she was financially dependent would not be entitled to pension upon the death of her father. 10. The question that remains is what would be the date of construing the stature of the interested candidate for grant of pension. If on the date of death of her father, the daughter was married and became a widow, after a long lapse of time, whether the parameters of the Memorandum of November 12, 2008 by the Government of West Bengal, as adopted by the respondent no. 3, by its Circular dated March 27, 2019 could still be applied? This would lead to a rather anomalous situation. This could not possibly be intent of the authority who has adopted such a Memorandum. 11. The Rule has to be given a reasonable construction and interpretation. The word “daughter” has been qualified. If the intent was to include all daughters, the qualification would not have been given. Thus, “daughter” has to be read in the light of the qualification. This qualification has to be fulfilled on the date of death of the father, when the daughter seeks her entitlement and not at any later point of time. 7 12. It is, in these circumstances, that the reckoning of the date of death of the employee becomes a primary factor as laid down in Priyanka Nandy & Ors. (supra) by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that the entitlement of “Family pension occurs on the death of the employee concerned”. Hence, date of death of the employee is of paramount consideration. Clearly the classification of a person seeking family pension must be construed as on the date of death of the employee and not after. 13. The decision referred to by the respondent in Jayanti Chatterjee(supra) is also clear and unequivocal and has placed reliance on Priyanka Nandi (supra) to come to the same conclusion. 14. The decision relied upon by the petitioner is in a case where the Central Rules were applicable, which contains an amendment to such effect. The State Rules, which are squarely applicable in the instant case, do not contain a similar amendment and does not in any manner enlarge the date for consideration of the stature of the incumbent. 15. In the instant case, it is imperative to ascertain the status of the petitioner in the light of the aforestated discussion. Even if one were to consider that the petitioner was indeed financially dependent on her father on the date of death in 2018, as according to her, she had been residing with him 8 since 2001, this much is absolutely inescapable that on the date of death of her father the petitioner was a married daughter. In fact, there was no pending proceeding seeking divorce by the petitioner. Earlier a suit of 2001 had been dismissed for default and on the petitioner’s own submission, the fresh suit for divorce had been filed in 2021, three years after the death of her father. Thus, the petitioner was not a divorced daughter to come within the parameters as set forth in the Memorandum of November 12, 2008. She was a married daughter on the date of death of her father. A married daughter who may or may not have been financially dependent on her father. However, if she was financially dependent on her father, her status as a married daughter on the date of death of her father, completely disentitled her to obtain pension. It is also rather strange to note that the petitioner who says that she had been deserted by her husband in 2001, chose not to initiate any proceeding for divorce after the same had been dismissed in 2001, till three years after the death of her father in 2018. 16. In view of the aforestated discussions, the following conclusions are inevitable : (i)The date of death of the employee/father in the instant case is of paramount consideration and has to be construed as the cut-off date for which the 9 petitioner’s entitlement has to be considered. Thus, in 2018, the petitioner was not entitled to seek any sort of family pension on the ground of her father. (ii) The petitioner was not a divorced daughter on the date of death of her father;’ (iii) The petitioner filed a suit for divorce in 2021, i.e. three years after the death of her father; (iv)The Memorandum of November 12, 2008, as adopted by the respondent no. 3 by virtue of the Circular of March 27, 2019 cannot be extended to the petitioner as she does not qualify as such being a married daughter on the date of death of her father. 17. In view of the aforestated discussion, finding and conclusions, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 18. There will be no order as to costs. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)