22.09.2026 Sl. No.21(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 6152 of 2026 Debabrata Mishra & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal and Ors. Mr. Sourav Mitra, Ms. Sreyasree Choudhury, Ms. Jonaki Saha …for the Petitioners. Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Mr. Nripendra Pratap Singh …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioners seek direction upon the respondent authorities to disburse the interest amount towards the arrear family pension till the date of actual disbursement of amount together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The petitioners contend that their father, late Barendra Nath Mishra was an approved Assistant Teacher of Alalpur Special Primary School, P.O. Junbani, District- Purba Medinipur who died-in-harness on 19th September, 1974. The petitioners’ mother died on 22nd June, 2016. Prior to her death, the mother of the petitioner received arrear family pension on 31st December, 2012. The disbursement was made belatedly. However, no interest has been paid. The petitioners being the sons and daughters of the 2 deceased teacher claim interest on delayed payment of arrear family pension. Hence this writ petition. 4. Mr. Sourav Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being legal heirs of deceased employee are entitled to receive interest on delayed payment of arrear family pension from the date of the entitlement of the mother i.e. 15th June, 1990. 5. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the State. 6. Mr. Sourav Sengupta, learned Advocate, who usually appears for the State, is requested to appear in this matter with a junior of his choice. Let appointment of the learned Advocates be regularised by the competent authority. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners is directed to hand over a copy of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State. 8. Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. 9. Though there is delay in making such claim, however, delay per se cannot defeat the valuable right of the petitioner. Relief may be granted to the writ petitioner in spite of the delay if it does not affect the right of third parties. (See: Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648). 10. In view of the above, respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund & Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and respondent No.3, Treasury Officer, Contai are directed to disburse the 3 interest @ 8% per annum to the petitioners on the amount released in favour of the petitioners by way of arrear family pension on and from 15th June, 1990 till the date of actual payment, to the extent of their shares. Such payment is to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioners is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.2, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund & Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal and also the respondent No.3, Treasury Officer, Contai, for necessary compliance. 1. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition being WPA 6152 of 2026 is disposed of. 2. Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. 3. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)