IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 14.09.2026 S/L 02 Court No. 4 (Naba) W.P.C.T. 33 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Smt. Mira Das Vs. The General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors. (ASSIGNED) Mr. Atreya Chakraborty ...for the Petitioner Ms. Debjani Ghosal ...for the U.O.I. Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh, Mr. Pritam Ghosh ...for the Private Respondent 1. Heard the learned advocate/s for the parties. 2. The private respondent was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal („Tribunal’ for short). The relief in the Original Application was limited to grant of provident fund dues to the applicant therein. The Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application bearing O.A. No. 781 of 2024 by an order dated 06.06.2025. The present writ petition is filed by the private respondent (mother of deceased employee), before the Tribunal. 3. The brief factual background forming the basis of the dispute between the parties arises out of 2 demise of the employee on 25.05.2022. During his lifetime the employee had earlier nominated his mother, as the nominee, subsequently modified by virtue of a nomination dated 18.11.2020, wherein the name of the applicant (wife); and daughter was included in the service record. 4. In the present appeal an issue regarding apportionment of the provident fund dues seems to be the grievance of the deceased employee‟s mother. The Tribunal after considering the stand of the parties, and the rules governing the grant of the retiral/terminal benefits recorded a finding that the applicant (wife) was receiving all benefits, as a result of demise of the employee in-harness. 5. Insofar as the provident fund dues are concerned, the entire amount was paid to the appellant (mother-in-law). However, the rules considered by the Tribunal contemplate apportionment of this amount in favour of the nominees/dependants. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that it appears from paragraph 11 of the order passed by the Tribunal that the order is in respect of all the dues. 7. We find such submission of the learned advocate for the appellant to be founded on a misconceived apprehension of the mother (appellant). Paragraph 10 of the order of the Tribunal in unambiguous 3 terms takes note of the fact that amount available in Provident Fund account of the deceased ought to have been disbursed to his legal heir(s). 8. We, therefore, find no ambiguity in the direction of the Tribunal contained in the paragraph 11. The respondents in the Original Application were directed to take necessary action in accordance with law to recover the “said amount”, meaning the amount of GPF, for being apportioned amongst the legal heir(s). 9. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the Tribunal‟s order dated 06.06.2025, in O.A. No. 781 of 2024; and leave it to the respondents to take appropriate steps in this regard for apportioning the GPF dues of deceased Government employee amongst the legal heir(s), in terms of the Tribunal‟s order. 10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 11. Pending application also stands disposed of. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)