Madhabi Ganguly vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 April, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Madhabi Ganguly vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 April, 2025

Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya

Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya

6.
(DL)
       16.04.2025
       Ct. No. 18
        (ARPAN)


                                    W.P.A. 7313 OF 2025

                                      Madhabi Ganguly
                                             Vs.
                               The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                          Mr. Samrat Chowdhury, Adv.
                          Mr. Tanmoy Khan, Adv.
                                                                     ...for the Petitioner

                          Mr. Suman Dey, Adv.
                                                                          ...for the State


                             Affidavit-of-service      filed    on    behalf    of    the

                    petitioner is taken on record.


                             In spite of service of notice, State respondents

are not represented.

Mr. Suman Dey, learned advocate is present

in Court who usually represents State respondents.

Office of the learned Government Pleader is requested

to regularize engagement of Mr. Suman Dey. Mr.

Suman Dey is permitted to enter appearance on behalf

of the State respondents.

Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed

to serve a copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Dey in

course of this day.

The writ petitioner is a widow of a retired

Assistant Teacher, who superannuated on 31 st

October, 2010 and got the benefit under the

Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF).

Subsequently, husband of the petitioner exercised

option to come under the Pension-cum-Gratuity

Scheme in terms of Government notification dated 13 th
2

June, 2014 which was issued in terms of the judgment

of the Special Bench dated 16 th July, 2013 passed on

intra-court appeal being A.P.O. No.94 of 2009 (State

of West Bengal & Ors. v. Abhijit Baidya & Ors.).

Husband of the petitioner died on 4th October,

2020 and accordingly, the claim is laid by the present

petitioner for issuance of revised Pension Payment

Order.

It has also been submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that as per demand of the State

respondents, husband of the petitioner has deposited

the amount along with interest and additional interest

which he received under CPF Scheme.

However, the grievance of the petitioner is

after taking steps in terms of the said notification

dated 13th June, 2014 by issuing pension payment

order dated 25th March, 2015, pensionary benefit was

sanctioned in favour of the employee not from the date

following the date of his retirement but from the date

of refund which employee made after exercising option

in terms of the said notification dated 13 th June, 2014.

Petitioner claims issuance of revised pension payment

order thereby sanctioning pensionary benefits from the

date following the date of husband’s superannuation

based on the judgment of the Special Bench dated 30 th
3

September, 2019 passed on an intra-court appeal being

A.P.O. No.121 of 2007.

The State respondents are represented by

learned advocate who has also submitted that based

on the judgment dated 30th September, 2019 of the

Special Bench the benefit of pension is accorded to

other similarly circumstanced retired teachers and

staffs from the date following the date of their

superannuation provided exercise of option has been

made within time in terms of said notification dated

13th June, 2014 and if the refund is made by the

concerned employee as per the calculation of the State

respondents.

This Court has heard the learned advocates

representing the parties and has perused the relevant

materials available on record.

It is nobody’s case that the employee did not

exercise option within time in terms of the said

notification dated 13th June, 2014 and the employee

on duly exercising option in terms of notification dated

13th June, 2014 switched over from CPF to Pension-

cum-Gratuity Scheme. On placing reliance on

paragraph 55 of the judgment of the Special Bench

dated 30th September, 2019, this Court does not find

any impediment in extending the benefit of pension to

the petitioner from the date following the date of her
4

husband’s retirement provided exercise of option is

made within time and refund has been made as per

the calculation of the State respondents.

Accordingly, this Court directs the State

respondents to issue revised pension payment order in

favour of the petitioner within twelve (12) weeks from

the date of communication of this order thereby

extending the benefit of pension from the date

following the date of superannuation of husband of the

petitioner.

With the above direction, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual

undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)