Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rita De vs 26.04.16 The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 April, 2016
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
W. P. No.3117 (W) of 2016
Rita De
v.
26.04.16 The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Sl-37
(S.R.)
Mr. Debasis Kar
Mr. S.K. Deb
Mr. A Bari ... for the petitioner.
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy ... for the State respondents.
The instant writ application has been preferred challenging, inter alia, the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1,38,915/- from the pension account of the petitioner's husband and the abrupt stoppage of disbursement of the pensionary benefits.
Mr. Kar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband retired from the post of head teacher at Gobindapur Primary School (hereinafter referred to as the said school) in the month of February, 2011. Subsequent thereto, the pension payment order was issued on 22nd February, 2011 and the pensionary benefits were disbursed in favour of the petitioner's husband and he was enjoying the pension amount as disbursed monthly and as credited to the joint account of the petitioner's husband and the petitioner in the Bank of India, Bhebia Branch. On and from 5th November, 2014 the petitioner's husband was missing and such fact was reported in the local police station through a diary being GDE No.260/14 dated 6th November, 2014. Till date the whereabouts of the petitioner's husband are not known. The disbursement of the monthly pension amount was stopped on and from the month of January, 2015 and without any notice to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,38,915/- was abruptly withdrawn from the pension account on 16th January, 2016.
Mr. Kar further submits that repeated representations were made 2 to the police authorities and thereafter a paper publication was also made in the "Bartaman Patrika" on 9th February, 2015 but till date the whereabouts of the petitioner's husband are not known. A writ application was also preferred, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the same was disposed of by an order dated 2nd June, 2015. The entire fact was also reported by the petitioner to the respondent no.7 by a representation dated 28th November, 2015.
Mr. Kar further submits that as the petitioner's husband is missing for more than a year, the petitioner becomes entitled to the benefits of family pension on the basis of the provisions of Rule 33 of the West Bengal Primary Education Teachers and Employees (Death- cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 2008) and also as per the provisions of the West Bengal Non-Govt. Educational Institutions (Death-cum-Retirement benefit) Scheme and the government order dated 12th February, 2014. Let copies of the said government order and a copy of the order passed in the writ application be kept on record.
Mrs. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that as the husband of the petitioner was missing disbursement of monthly pension was stopped and that as proper intimation was not sent to the pension sanctioning authority, the authorities went on crediting the entire monthly pension amount in the pension account to which the petitioner is not entitled to. The petitioner only becomes entitled to the benefits of family pension after death or missing of the petitioner's husband and that as such the amount of Rs.1,38,915/- was rightly withdrawn.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
The undisputed facts are that the petitioner herein has a 3 daughter who is presently married and she is not entitled to family pension. The pension payment order was issued in favour of the petitioner's husband on 22nd February, 2011 and the monthly pension amount was duly credited by the authorities directly to the bank account till the month of December, 2015. The petitioner's husband is missing since 5th November, 2014 and a missing diary to that effect has already been lodged on 9th November, 2014. The petitioner's husband is still missing.
A perusal of the said rules of 2008 reveal that to mitigate the hardships of the members of the deceased teacher or a teacher who is missing provision has been made towards payment of family pension to the dependants of the missing teacher subject to compliance of necessary formalities including execution of an indemnity bond from the family pensioner concerned to the effect that all payments received from the government shall be refunded to the government in the event the missing person reappears and claims his dues. As such in terms of the relevant provisions of the rules, scheme and the government order there appears to be no embargo towards disbursement of the benefits of the family pension in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to make an appropriate representation, praying for disbursement of the benefits of family pension, enclosing all relevant documents to the pension sanctioning authority being the respondent no.3 within a period of three weeks from date.
Upon receipt of the said representation the respondent no.3 shall consider the same, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass necessary order towards recommendation of such claim in favour of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of the said rules, scheme and the government guidelines, subject to execution 4 of an indemnity bond by the petitioner and to forward the order to the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the said order the pension sanctioning authority shall adjust the withdrawn amount of Rs.1,38,915/- with the family pension to which the petitioner is entitled to.
Needless to observe that thereafter all follow up steps shall be taken up by all the respondents towards disbursement of the benefits of family pension in favour of the petitioner without any further delay.
If for any pressing reason the said benefits of family pension cannot be disbursed in favour of the petitioner, a reasoned order to that effect must be communicated by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from date.
With the above observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)