Sl. No.11 v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Judgment

1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to finalise the pension papers of the petitioner and release the retiral dues forthwith in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner contends that the petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher in Chandipur F.P. School under District Primary School Council, South 24-Parganas on 12th November, 1999. The petitioner retired from service as Head Teacher of Pathankhali F.P. School on 28th February, 2025. Immediately after retirement, the pension papers of the petitioner were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), South 24-Parganas being the Pension Sanctioning Authority. The pension papers of the petitioner were processed and transmitted to Director of Pension, 2 Provident Fund and Group Insurance. However, the said authority raised objection in the pension file indicating that the joint photographs and signatures of the petitioner’s wife has not been provided in the pension papers. Matrimonial disputes are subsisting between the petitioner and his wife in relation to which a matrimonial suit has been filed by the petitioner against his wife (respondent no.8) being MAT Suit No.2799 of 2018 which is pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas. The petitioner has mentioned the name of his wife and his son as nominee/legal heirs in the pension papers but the wife of the petitioner is not supplying photographs/ documents and is also not willing to put her signature in the pension papers. For such reason, the petitioner could not comply the objections as raised by the respondent authorities. The pension file of the petitioner is kept in abeyance. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the withholding of pension by the authority concerned is arbitrary and uncalled for. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed his tenure of service satisfactorily. There are no such criminal proceedings and/or disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Due to strained matrimonial relation with his wife, the petitioner is 3 not in a position to provide joint photographs and the signature of the wife in the pension papers. However, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the pensionary benefits on such technical grounds. He seeks appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities for disbursement of the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Rivu Dutta, learned advocate for the State submits that as per the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981 the petitioner has to provide the joint photographs with his spouse and her signature in the pension papers. The respondent authorities are willing to take immediate steps for sanctioning of the pension in the event such compliance is made by the petitioner. He files an instruction submitted by Senior Law Officer, DPPG dated 17th July, 2026 which is taken on record.

6. Mr. Gourav Das, learned advocate representing District Primary School Council, South 24-Parganas submits that the District Inspector of Schools have already verified the documents and transmitted it to the DPPG for sanctioning of the pension in favour of the petitioner.

7. Despite service none appears on behalf of respondent no.8/wife of the petitioner.

8. Having heard the learned advocate for the respective parties, the only issue which is to be decided is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent authority are justified in refusing to process the pension papers of the petitioner. 4

9. Undeniably, a Matrimonial Suit is pending between the petitioner and respondent no.8. For such reason, the petitioner is unable to provide the joint photographs and signature of his spouse in the pension papers. Be that as it may, such aspect appears to be a technical one. Save and except the aforesaid objection, there are no other objections raised regarding entitlement of the petitioner to pension and other retiral benefits. Now the question which arises at this juncture is that can the pension and other retiral benefit of the petitioner be withheld on such technical ground.

10. In order to examine the aforesaid issue, it would be profitable to reproduce the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. versus Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, observed as hereunder:- "31. From the discussion three things emerge:(i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution;(II) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to 10 months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure."

11. The aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court manifest that that pension is neither 5 a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right. The pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare measure provided for the employee so that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It is also well settled that pension and other post-retiral benefits accruing to a Government employee are akin to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India which can be denied to a Government employee only by following the due process in law. [See: State of Jharkhand & Ors. versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210].

12. Rule 19 of the West Bengal Primary Education (Employees’ Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 2009 does not provide any grounds for withholding of pension due to non-submission of joint photograph with the spouse and her signature in the pension papers. Therefore, denying the pension and post- retiral benefits to the writ petitioner by the concerned authority on mere technical grounds as above is not proper.

13. Accordingly, respondent no.4, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal is directed to issue the Pension Payment Order in favour of the petitioner and shall forward the same to respondent no.6, the Treasury Officer, Canning, South 24-Parganas for releasing of such pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of 6 four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

14. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.4, the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal for necessary action.

15. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 2364 of 2026 stands disposed of.

16. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted.

17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

18. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

21. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)