Wife and daughter sought direction to be included as nominees for a government servant's retiral dues; the Tribunal had declined. The Court held no obligation is cast on the employer to nominate any particular family member under the D.C.R.B Rules and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
04.03.2025 (D/L-2) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)
W.P.S.T. 24 of 2025
Smt. Mausumi Das & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Santimay Bhattacharyya, Mr. Ziaul Haque, Mr. Anirban Das
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Mr. Somnath Naskar
...for the State
Mr. Debajyoti Deb, Ms. Somdyuti Parekh
...for the Respondent No. 2
2
with the provisions contained in the D.C.R.B Rules. There is no provision casting an obligation on the State to record the name of wife and daughter as nominee. The O.A. No. 355 of 2024 has thus been dismissed.
nominee/beneficiary of the retiral dues of a government employee.
3
They do not fall within the definition of “family” contained under the D.C.R.B. Rules and, therefore, they are strangers for the purposes of grant of retiral dues under the D.C.R.B. Rules.
4
future. In so far as the mother is concerned there can be no denial that she falls within the definition of “family” contained in Rule 7(e) of the D.C.R.B. Rules.
5
the “relatives” included in the definition of “family”
under Rule 7(e) of the D.C.R.B. Rules.
7(e) of the D.C.R.B, which reads as follows:
“7(e) “family” includes the following relatives of Government servant namely :
6
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State can be compelled to record the wife and daughter of a government servant as nominees for retiral dues under the D.C.R.B Rules.
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding such a petition not maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Gouri Rani Das –Vs.- Commission of Police, Kolkata and othersRelied on¶7
2007 SCC OnLine Cal 880 · Who else cites this
Parash Chandra Ghosh –Vs.- The State of West Bengal & OthersRelied on¶7
2014 SCC OnLine Cal 9281 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Mausumi Das
The State of West Bengal
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 5
Madhuresh Prasad
Supratim Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
