29.09.2026 Item No.47 (DL) Court No.14 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 5262 of 2026 Snehalata Panda -Vs- The State of West & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu, …for the petitioner. Ms. Anita Kundu, Ms. Oisani Mukherjee. …for the State. 1. Report filed by the State furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Purba Medinipur dated 27th August, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to disburse the family pension in favour of the petitioner being the widowed daughter of the deceased employee. 3. The petitioner contends that her father Late Barendra Nath Mishra was an Assistant Teacher in Alalpur Primary School, Junbari, Contai, District : Purba Medinpur. The petitioner is the widowed daughter of the deceased employee. The petitioner’s father died-in-harness on 19th September, 1974. The mother of the petitioner while receiving family pension expired on 22nd June, 2016. The husband of the petitioner died on 2nd December, 2018. On 15th 2 December, 2025 the petitioner made a representation before the respondent no.4, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Purba Medinipur for grant of family pension in her favour. However, no step has been yet taken. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter be relegated to the appropriate authority to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner on 15th December, 2025 seeking grant of family pension. 5. Ms. Anita Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that as per the West Bengal Recognised Non-Government Education Institution Employees (Death-cum- Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 (in short „DCRB Scheme, 1981‟) the widowed daughter may be eligible to get dependent family pension. However, in the instant case as the father of the petitioner superannuated before introduction of DCRB Scheme, 1981, she is not entitled to get dependent family pension. 6. The issue raised on behalf of the State respondent is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench passed in The State of West Bengal & ors. –versus- Sabita Roy (in re : MAT 1518 of 2019). The relevant portion of 3 paragraph 18 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder. “18. 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 1 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 Ran 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 2015 (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 extension of family pension memoranda 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.” 7. Upon going through the aforesaid proposition it is settled that widow, unmarried and divorced daughter of a deceased teacher retired prior to 1st April, 1981 was found entitled to family pension. 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Larger Bench, the respondent no.4, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Purba Medinipur is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner 4 dated 15th December, 2025 and dispose of the same, upon notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9. Reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week of passing thereof. 10. Petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.4, the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Purba Medinipur, for necessary compliance. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition being WPA 5262 of 2026 stands disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of. 14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)