Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chanchala Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 September, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
37
04.09.2014
palash
WP No. 24699 (W) of 2014
Chanchala Dutta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amit Prakash Lahiri
Mr. Arunava Pati
Mr. Sasthi Charan Dhara
... For the petitioner
Md. Abdur Rahaman
... For the State
Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, shall be
retained with the records.
The petitioner's husband Prabhakar Dutta (since
deceased) was an assistant teacher of a primary school. He
retired in the year 1972 and passed away the following year.
The petitioner approached the District Inspector of Schools
(PE), Purulia as well as the Sub-Inspector of Schools, North
Circle, Balarampur, District - Purulia, with a representation
dated 7th May, 2014 claiming family pension on the basis of a
Government Order dated 1st November, 2010. The Sub-
Inspector by his letter dated 15th May, 2014 called upon the
petitioner to produce documents relating to her late husband's
educational qualifications, appointment letter, duplicate service
2
book, etc. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter issued by the
Sub-Inspector and prays for an order on the respondents to
consider her claim for family pension strictly in terms of the Government Order dated 1st November, 2010.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's husband passed away in the year 1973, i.e. more than four decades back, and further having regard to the fact that she is a rustic lady, it may not be possible for her to produce documents relating to her late husband's qualifications and service records. At this point of time, the Sub-Inspector was not justified in calling upon the petitioner to produce the same. However, the petitioner is under an obligation to prove that she had been legally married to Prabhakar Dutta (since deceased) and that she is the rightful claimant to family pension.
While observing that the Sub-Inspector and the District Inspector shall not insist upon production of the documents relating to educational qualifications of the petitioner's late husband as well as his service records, I direct such respondents to proceed strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 1st November, 2010 and to confer on the petitioner whatever benefit she is entitled to in terms thereof. The said respondents ought to remember that the 3 Government Order dated 1st November, 2010 was issued as a social security measure and that a rigid legalistic view would be counter productive and tend to frustrate the object for which the said Government Order was issued.
The Sub-Inspector, however, shall be at liberty to consult the records maintained at the school where the petitioner's husband served for the purpose of satisfying himself that the claim of the petitioner is not a bogus one.
Necessary action in terms of this order shall be taken as early as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the event the petitioner's claim is not found to be justified, a reasoned order shall be passed; on the contrary if the petitioner is found to be the rightful heir of Prabhakar Dutta (since deceased), financial benefits flowing from the Government Order dated 1st November, 2010 shall be released in her favour without any further delay.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
4Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Dipankar Datta, J.)