Dismissed

Uniion of India and Others v. Treasury Officer, Treasury I Purba Bardhaman and Others

Calcutta HC23 Aug 2021WP.CT/17/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a family pension order, the Court upheld the High Court Tribunal's direction allowing two widows to share the pension. Rejecting the contention that a nominee holds the title, the Court found no prejudice to the employer and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. All parties to act on the server copies of this order.

Uniion of India and Others Vs Treasury… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

23.08.2021 SL No.15 Court No.16 (gc)

¶2

WPCT 17 of 2021

¶3

Union of India & Ors. Vs.

¶4

Smt. Lichu Bala Ghosh & Ors.

¶5

(Via Video Conference)

¶6

Mr. Anuran Samanta,

¶7

…for the Petitioners. Mr. R.N. Chakraborty, Mr. Janardan Mandal, …for the Respondent No.1.

¶8

One Smt. Lichu Bala Ghosh, the widow of late Kalipada Ghosh approached the Tribunal for a direction upon the authorities concerned to pay family pension to her husband in equal share between Smt. Lichu Bala Ghosh (wife), Smt. Shibani Bala Ghosh (wife), Smt. Rajlaxmi Ghosh (unmarried daughter) and Sri Nanda Lal Ghosh (mentally deranged son) forthwith in accordance with law.

¶9

On behalf of Smt. Shibani Bala Ghosh it was contended that she was the nominee to receive family pension and in support of her claim she produced certain documents which records that the pensioner died on 28^th May, 1990 as per death certificate and also that family pension started from 29^th May, 1990 in favour of Shibani Bala Ghosh as per Pension Payment Order. However, the name of the original applicant did not appear in any of the documents on the basis of which the original applicant claimed family pension. In course of hearing, both the widows have submitted before the Tribunal that they would happily agree to share the family

¶10

¶11

pension between themselves and for the purpose to enter a compromise to that effect. Even if it is assumed for the moment that the second marriage is invalid, Smt. Shibani Bala Ghosh, whose name appeared as a nominee, has agreed to share the pension receivable by her with Smt. Lichu Bala Ghosh and such sharing of the pensionary benefits between the two ladies cannot cause any prejudice to the employer. It was open for Smt. Shibani Bala Ghosh to accept the entirety of the amount and divide it between two of them. It was on such consideration, Rule 75 of the Railways Pension Rules was interpreted in favour of the two widows.

¶12

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶13

The writ petition being WPCT 17 of 2021 fails.

¶14

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order

¶16

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶17

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶18

(Soumen Sen, J.)

Uniion of India and Others v. Treasury Officer, Treasury I Purba Bardhaman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uniion of India and Others v. Treasury Officer, Treasury I Purba Bardhaman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogesh Chandra Ray and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Soumendu Bera and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Saddam Hossain and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smeeta Paul Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sandhya Dutta and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.