Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kumar Shyamali Das @ Shanti Das And ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 6 February, 2012
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
S/L. 56.
February 6, 2012.
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W. P. S. T. No. 24 of 2012
Kumar Shyamali Das @ Shanti Das and Another
....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others
...Respondents.
Mr. Khairul Alam ...for the petitiones.
Mr. Jahar Lal De, Mr. Shyamal Kumar Dey ...for the State-respondents.
The order impugned in the present application has been passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 351 of 2011 on September 20, 2011 dismissing the application submitted by the applicants.
The applicants, who are the children of one Usha Rani Das, have claimed the retiral benefits and family pension due to them on account of the death of their mother, who died-in-harness on January 4, 2002.
It appears from the record that the applicants' father is missing since 1995.
The authorities have denied the applicants' family pension as well as other retiral benefits although the nomination papers have been found to be in order.
The reason seems to be that there was no reply from the applicant no. 2 whether he had any objection if there was a nomination in favour of applicant no. 1 by her deceased mother.
The tribunal has found that since such objection was not on record and that there was no document to communicate that the applicants' father was missing from 1995, the pension and retiral benefit had rightly been denied. The tribunal, also, found that it would be necessary to obtain a succession certificate from the competent court in order to release the amounts in their favour.
There is no dispute that there is a valid nomination in favour of the applicant no. 1. There is, also, no dispute inter se between the applicants.
Therefore, in our opinion, there is no reason to deny the family pension or the retiral benefits to the applicants.
The question as to whether the father of the applicants is missing cannot be a reason for denying the applicants' family pension. The rules governing the disbursement of family pension indicate that in case of female subscriber, the husband and her children are entitled to family pension.
In these circumstances, in our opinion, when the deceased employee had nominated the applicant No. 1 as her nominee for the purposes of family pension, the authorities ought to have released the pension immediately to the applicants on the death of the deceased employee. Moreover in the declaration from the deceased has declared her daughter Shyamali and son Somen as the only members of her family.
It is now well settled that the nominee is entitled to receive such amount as a trustee for and on behalf of other heirs, who would be entitled to such amount.
In the present case, we have been informed that there are no other children and, therefore, the applicants would be entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits.
The State-respondents shall pay the same within three months from today with interest at the rate of 9% (nine per centum) per annum from the date of submission of forms for payment of pension as the applicants have been denied the pensionary and retiral benefits for over ten years for no justifiable reason.
The application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disposed of accordingly.
We make no order as to costs.
The office is directed to supply xerox certified copy of this order to the applicant, if applied for, on urgent basis.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)