Keka Mitra v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

9.

9.

(DL) (DL) 27.08.2025 27.08.2025 Ct. No. 18 (ARPAN) W.P.A. 14051 OF 2025 KEKA MITRA VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Subarna Bank, Adv.

Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv.

...for the Petitioner Mr. Arunava Maiti, Adv.

...for the State 1.

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

2.

The petitioner is a widow of a retired Assistant Teacher, who superannuated on 31st January, 2004 and got the benefit under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF). Subsequently, husband of the petitioner exercised option to come under the Pensioncum-Gratuity Scheme in terms of Government notification dated 13th June, 2014 which was issued in terms of the judgment of the Special Bench dated 16th July, 2013 passed on intra-Court appeal being A.P.O. No.94 of 2009 (State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Abhijit Baidya & Ors.).

3.

Husband of the petitioner died on 16th May, 2025 and accordingly claim is laid by the present petitioner for issuance of revised Pension Payment Order.

4.

It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per demand of the State respondents husband

of petitioner deposited the amount along with interest and additional interest which he received under CPF Scheme.

5.

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 16th June, 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 the employee made after exercising option in terms of the said notification dated 13th 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 30th September, 2019 passed on intra-Court appeal being A.P.O. No.121 of 2007.

6.

Learned advocate has also submitted on behalf of the State respondents 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 staff 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 staff as per the calculation of the State respondents.

7.

This Court has heard the learned advocates representing the parties and has perused the relevant materials available on record.

8.

It is nobody's case that the teacher did not exercise option within time in terms of the said notification dated 13th June, 2014 and the teacher on duly exercising option in terms of notification dated 13th June, 2014 switched over from CPF to Pension-cumGratuity 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 teacher's retirement provided exercise of option is made within time and refund has been made as per the calculation of the State respondents.

9.

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 teacher's superannuation.

10. Leave is granted to the learned advocate for the petitioner to add District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata as respondent no.4 in place and stead of District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Barasat, North 24 Parganas. However, service of notice upon District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata is dispensed with since State respondents are represented by learned advocate.

11. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

13. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)