22.09.2026 Sl. No.36 Ct. No.14 gd IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 872 of 2026 Swapna Adhya Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arup Kumar Sahoo …for the Petitioner. Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee …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 direction upon the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no.3, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur and respondent no.4, the Director, Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal to grant and disburse family pension in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that her father, late Malay Adhya was an Upper Division Clerk of District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur who died in-harness on 10th September, 1979. After the demise of the petitioner’s father pension payment order was issued in favour of the petitioner’s mother on 15th March, 2004. At the time of her death on 3rd October, 2018, the mother of the petitioner was receiving pension. After the demise of the petitioner’s mother, the petitioner being an unmarried daughter of the deceased employee, submitted an application along with all relevant documents before respondent no.5, the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur for grant of family pension in her favour. Subsequent thereto, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur sanctioned family pension of the petitioner and forwarded the file to the Director, Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance for issuing pension payment order in favour of the petitioner. However, the same was returned with the observation that as per G.O. No.539-SE(P&B)/SL-SS-61/10 (Part-1) dated 1st November, 2010 the benefit of family pension has been extended only to living ex-employees or their living widows, as the case may be. On such ground the petitioner being the unmarried daughter has not been extended family pension. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Arup Kumar Sahoo, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue of entitlement of unmarried daughter to family pension is no more res integra and has been extended in case of employee who retired prior to 1st April, 1981 in the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench passed in State of 2 West Bengal and Others versus Sabita Roy (In Re: MAT 1518 of 2019) along with other appeals and writ petition. Therefore, the action of the Director, Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance withholding of the pension on the ground that the petitioner being the unmarried daughter is not entitled to family pension is incorrect. He seeks for appropriate direction upon the authorities concerned to grant family pension in favour of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee, learned advocate for the State submits that Special Director, Director Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal has sought for a clarification from the Additional Secretary (Law), School Education Department regarding the grant of family pension in favour of the petitioner, in the light of the judgement passed in Sabita Roy (supra). He files a copy of the letter under Memo No.505/A/L/DPPG/Misc. Law/2022 dated 24th August, 2026 which is taken on record. 6. Upon hearing the learned advocates for respective parties, it falls for consideration whether the audit observation of the Assistant Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal dated 1st November, 2019, Annexure P-5, is sustainable or not. 3 7. By the aforesaid letter dated 1st November, 2019, it appears that the pension file of the petitioner has been returned with the following audit observation: “As per G.O. No.539-SE(P&B)/SL-SS-61/10 (Pt1) dated-01.11.2010, the benefit of the Family Pension has been extended only to the living ex-employees or their living Widows, as the case may be. In this connection, para-6 of the said G.O. No. regarding Pre’81 case may be followed. So, P.S.A. is requested to follow the aforesaid G.O. for determination of the Family Pension and do the needful as per G.O.” 8. In order to examine the issue it would be profitable to reproduce the relevant paragraph no.18 of the decision in Sabita Roy (supra) as hereunder: “We have no hesitation in mind to hold that the unaltered or unaffected Memoranda as above clearly demonstrate in unequivocal terms that a teaching and non-teaching staff who retired prior to 1st April, 1981 or after 1st April, 1981 was entitled to get the pensionary benefits in terms of the DCRB Scheme, 1981. On the demise of such staff, their widows are entitled to get family pension in terms of the modified provision of the scheme 1981 vide memorandum dated 01.11.2010. The unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter of an employee who retired prior to 01.04.1981 or after 01.04.1981 is entitled to get family pension on fulfilment of the requirements as per the mechanism introduced vide Memorandum no. 96-SE dated 13.04.2010. In such legal scenario, we do not concur with the decision rendered in Bela Rani Acharya and Abida Khatun Sk. that an unmarried daughter is not entitled to get family pension till her life ends on the demise of her parent who either received pension or family pension. Though in the decision in MAT 119 of 2014 (Kumari Reba Ghosh-Vs-The State of West Bengal), the Division Bench had ruled that unmarried daughter of a pensioner would be entitled to get family pension, but this Bench neither referred to nor interpreted the relevant memoranda relating to extension of family pension to an unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter. That being the position, we though concur with the final decision, but we respectfully disagree with the observations as recorded therein.” 9. From the observation as above of the Hon’ble Special Bench, it manifests the unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter of an employee who retired prior to 1st April, 1981 or after 1st April, 1981 is entitled to get 4 family pension on fulfilment of the requirements as per the mechanism introduced vide Memorandum no. 96-SE dated 13th April, 2010. 10. Accordingly, the audit observation of Assistant Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal dated 1st November, 2019 is set aside. 11. In the above conspectus, respondent No.4, the Director, Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal is directed to take a decision with regard to the application of the petitioner seeking grant of family pension in terms of the observation of Hon’ble Special Bench in Sabita Roy (supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.4, the Director, Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, for necessary compliance. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition being WPA 872 of 2026 stands disposed of. 14. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 18. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.) 6