Dipali Dubey Alias Bharati Dubey v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

06.01.2026 Sl. No. 01 Ct. No.14 AN

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA/15158/2025 DIPALI DUBEY alias BHARATI DUBEY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Mr. Arunava Pan Mr. Amitabha Bhattacharyya ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Agarwal Mr. Prashant Kr. Tripathi ...for the State.

1.

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

2.

Statement of facts dated 15th July, 2025 filed by the State is taken on record.

3.

By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to incorporate the name of the petitioner Dipali Dubey as the pensioner in place of Bharati Dubey in the pension payment order vide No. BNK/S/P/5777 and also for sanctioning family pension in favour of the petitioner in terms of the hearing dated 17th March, 2025. 4.

The petitioner contends that her husband was an Assistant Teacher in Bikrampur Primary School, Bikrampur under the District Primary School Council, Bankura and retired from service on superannuation on 28th February, 1992. The pension payment order

was issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 28th February, 2001. The petitioner's husband received the pension regularly till his death on 6th September, 2016. Upon death of the petitioner's husband, she came to know that her nick name "Bharati Dubey" has been incorporated in the pension payment order under family pension. The petitioner approached the Sub-Inspector of School, Sarenga Circle for necessary correction and for regularization of her family pension, however, no steps were taken. The petitioner also made representation on 27th January, 2025 before the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal, respondent no. 3 herein and other authorities for rectification of her name in the pension payment order by incorporation of the name of "Dipali Dubey" in place of "Bharati Dubey". The petitioner was called for hearing, however, no orders have been passed to that effect till date. Hence the writ petition.

5.

Mr. Arunava Pan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that inadvertently the nick name of the petitioner viz. "Bharati Dubey" has been incorporated in the pension payment order. Due to discrepancy in the name, the family pension has not yet been issued in favour of the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased employee. Though the petitioner was called for hearing but no order has yet been passed. He seeks for appropriate direction for

consideration of such representation by the appropriate authority.

6.

Mr. Vijay Agarwal, learned Advocate for the State submits that the petitioner failed to produce any relevant documents in support of her claim. Furthermore, there is a delay of almost eight years in raising such claim by the petitioner. Therefore, such prayer of the petitioner for incorporation of her name in place of "Bharati Dubey" is not sustainable. 7.

Admittedly, a representation dated 27th January, 2025 was made by the petitioner before the appropriate authority. She was called for hearing on 17th March, 2025 vide letter dated 6th March, 2025. However, no final order upon enquiry has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Bankura, respondent no.4 herein, pursuant to such notice of hearing.

8.

Accordingly, respondent no.4, District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Bankura is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27th January, 2025 and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter.

9.

Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.4,

District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Bankura for necessary compliance.

10.

With the above directions, the writ petition being WPA 15158 of 2025 stands disposed of.

11.

Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 12.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

13.

All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 14.

There shall be no order as to costs.

15.

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

16.

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.)