Disposed

Kajari Karmakar @ Kajari Marick v. Employees and State Insurance Corporation and Anr.

Calcutta HC7 Mar 2024WPA/28681/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow sought family pension from ESIC after her husband's death; payment stalled over a discrepancy in her surname. The court held the surname mismatch could not justify refusal, directed payment of current pension from April 2024 with arrears at 6% interest, citing that family pension claims are a continuing cause.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kajari Karmakar @ Kajari Marick Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

07.03.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Sl. No.1 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

¶2

(PP) APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WPA 28681 of 2023

¶4

Smt. Kajari Karmakar alias Kajari Marick Vs. The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

¶5

Mr. Md. Masudur Rahaman Paik ….for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Subal Maitra, Mr. Arindam Maitra …for ESIC.

¶7

The petitioner is the widow of a retired employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (in short, ESIC). The said employee, namely Kartick Chandra Marick has superannuated on 31^st May, 1997. The said employee was receiving pension under a pension payment order dated 17^th November, 1998. The employee subsequently changed his name by affirming an affidavit on 13^th September, 2002 and making publication thereof in the newspaper on 28^th September, 2002. An affidavit was also affirmed before a 1^st Class Judicial Magistrate at Alipore. By dint of such act, the name of the employee was changed from Kartick Chandra Marick to Gopal Chandra Karmakar. On the basis of such changed name, the petitioner’s husband was issued a revised pension order on 19^th February, 2009. The petitioner’s husband died on 1^st March, 2012 leaving

¶8

¶9

behind his widow/the petitioner, two sons and one daughter as his legal heirs and heiress. The petitioner also changed her surname from “Marick” to “Karmakar” by affirming an affidavit before a 1^st Class Judicial Magistrate on 3^rd August, 2022. The Voter Identity Card of the petitioner was accordingly changed. The petitioner thereafter made an application for family pension with the ESI Corporation (respondent no.4) on 4^th August, 2022.

¶10

The petitioner’s grievance is that despite such application, no family pension has yet been given to the petitioner though she is entitled to the same.

¶11

On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is submitted that the application for family pension was made at a belated stage. Before the application was made and even thereafter due to the discrepancy in the petitioner’s surname the entire exercise has got stalled. The petitioner’s husband after changing his name had the surname “Karmakar”. However, the petitioner continued with her husband’s old surname “Marick”. In the records of ESI Corporation, the name of the petitioner is Kajari Marick and not Kajari Karmakar. Only in August, 2022, the petitioner has affirmed an affidavit before a 1^st Class Magistrate to change her surname to “Karmakar” from “Marick”.

¶12

There is no contrary claim from any one as to

¶13

¶14

the family pension. There also appears to be no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner is not the widow of the deceased retired employee. The dispute, if any, is in respect of petitioner’s surname. This cannot be a ground for refusing family pension to a deserving candidate.

¶15

The respondent no.1 shall take such affidavit into consideration and if otherwise found entitled in law should start paying current family pension to the petitioner with effect from April, 2024. So far as the family pension of the petitioner is concerned, if the petitioner is found entitled for the period from the death of the petitioner’s husband (1^st March, 2012) till March, 2024, the respondent no.1 shall pay the arrears of pension with interest calculated @ 6% per annum on reducing balance by 3 instalments, first of which shall be by 30^th April, 2024 and the subsequent 2 instalments shall respectively be on 30^th May and 30^th June, 2024. Even though the petitioner had applied for family pension only on 4^th August, 2022, no part of the arrear pension can be construed to have been barred by limitation inasmuch as receipt of family pension, if otherwise entitled to in law, is a continuing cause as held in

¶16

Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation

¶17

of India reported in (2016) 13 SCC 797.

¶18

¶19

In the event ESI Corporation/respondent no.1 finds that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension for any cogent reason, the Competent Authority of the respondent no.1 shall, by a reasoned order, communicate to the petitioner the reasons for not allowing the family pension to the petitioner. This exercise should, in case it happens, be completed by 30^th April, 2024.

¶20

Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

Since I have not called for affidavits, allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted.

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶23

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

Kajari Karmakar @ Kajari Marick v. Employees and State Insurance Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kajari Karmakar @ Kajari Marick v. Employees and State Insurance Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapna Samanata Jana Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sandip Das and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Cmj Service Private Limited Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Swami Smaranananda President and Ors. Vs Na

Sail Growth Works Vs Durga Mahato and Ors.

Panchanan Das Vs Pradip Kumar Panja