Sulekha Pramanik v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ORS.

18.07.2025 Sl. No. 16 Ct No. 3 SG WPA 10037 of 2025 Sulekha Pramanik Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty, Ms. Mrinmoyee Roy Chowdhury.

... for the petitioner Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta.

...for KMC 1.

Affidavit-of-service is taken on record.

2.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not granting the family pension and other retiral dues of her deceased father, despite she being the only dependent unmarried daughter.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that her father, a former employee of the respondent-Corporation, passed away on 03.07.1994, leaving behind his wife (petitioner's mother), an elder son (now deceased), younger son and a daughter (petitioner). Upon the demise of the petitioner's father, her elder brother was appointed on compassionate ground by the respondent-Corporation. After his death, his wife was also granted compassionate appointment.

The petitioner's mother received only a sum of Rs. 58,000/-

towards retiral dues, however, no family pension was sanctioned in her favour. Consequently, WPA 6077 of 2024 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2024 whereby this Court directed the respondent-Corporation to consider and decide the representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner.

However, no order was passed in compliance with the said direction. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother passed away on 20.12.2024. After her demise, the petitioner being an unmarried and dependent daughter of the deceased employee, submitted a representation dated 07.02.2025, seeking grant of family pension. Despite the lapse of a considerable period, no decision has been taken on the said representation till date.

4.

Learned Counsel for the respondentCorporation submits that the authority is ready and willing to consider petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2025.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the same is considered within a time bound manner.

6.

In light of the foregoing, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2025, strictly in

accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

7.

With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

8.

Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted.

9.

There shall be no order as to costs.

10.

Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)