Dismissed¶24

Sushil Kumar Dutta v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Apr 2026FMA/1617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension; Pension Payment Order (PPO); erroneous name 'Sunil' instead of 'Sushil'; interest on arrear family pension; delayed disbursement; constructive res judicata; estoppel from reinvigorating claim; no contemporaneous steps for correction; delay not attributable to State; WPA 20520 of 2024; WPA 17842 of 2025; FMA 1617 of 2025; intra-court appeal; State of West Bengal; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge rightly applied the principle of constructive res judicata: no prayer for interest on arrears of family pension was made in WPA 20520 of 2024, and the appellant is estopped from reinvigorating that claim by preferring another writ petition. ¶20

Sushil Kumar Dutta Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the arrear family pension for the delayed disbursement occasioned by the erroneous recording of his name in the PPO dated 27th June, 2013. +2 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶20

Key takeaways

No contemporaneous steps were taken by the appellant for correction of his name in the PPO; in the facts of the case the delay cannot be attributed to the State, and the learned Single Judge's reasoning to that effect cannot be faulted.ratio¶23
The Division Bench found no infirmity or perversity in the order under appeal and dismissed the appeal and its connected application.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Intra-court appeal (FMA) against dismissal of a writ petition seeking interest on delayed arrear family pension. The appellant's wife, an Assistant Teacher, retired on 31st March, 2013; her Pension Payment Order dated 27th June, 2013 erroneously recorded the appellant's name as 'Sunil' instead of 'Sushil'; she expired on 22nd May, 2016. The error was first pointed out in WPA 20520 of 2024, which sought only rectification of the name in the PPO and consequential benefits, and no prayer for interest was made therein; pursuant thereto the name was rectified and the arrear as well as current family pension were released. The appellant then filed WPA 17842 of 2025 seeking interest on the arrears, which the learned Single Judge dismissed by order dated 4th September, 2025. Held, dismissing the appeal and the connected application: (i) the learned Single Judge rightly applied the principle of constructive res judicata, the appellant being estopped from reinvigorating the claim for interest not raised in the earlier writ petition; (ii) no contemporaneous steps having been taken for correction of the name in the PPO, the delay cannot be attributed to the State. No order as to costs.

¶1

4 02.04.2026 Ct No.11 rrc

¶2

FMA 1617 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2026

¶3

(Sushil Kumar Dutta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

¶4

Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar

¶5

….. For the appellant

¶6

Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, AGP Mr. Tanweer J. Mondal

¶7

By preferring the present intra-court appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 4th September, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. WPA 17842 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Judge declined to accept the petitioner’s contention and dismissed the writ petition.

¶8

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant’s wife was an Assistant Teacher in a High School and retired on 31st March, 2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Vide memo dated 27th June, 2013, a Pension Payment Order (in short, PPO) was issued in her favour, and she started receiving pension with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thereafter, she expired on 22nd May, 2016.

¶9

The appellant became entitled to receive family pension thereafter. However, no such pension was released in his favour on the ground that, in the PPO of his wife dated 27th June, 2013, his name was erroneously recorded as ‘Sunil’ instead of ‘Sushil’. In 2014, he preferred a writ petition, being WPA 20520 of 2024, seeking a direction upon the concerned

¶10

¶11

respondent to rectify his name in the PPO dated 27th June, 2013 and to extend all consequential benefits, including payment of family pension.

¶12

Pursuant thereto, his name in the PPO of his wife was rectified, and the arrear family pension as well as the current family pension were released in his favour, and he is presently drawing the same. Subsequently, due to the delayed payment of arrear family pension and current family pension, he preferred another writ petition, being WPA 17842 of 2025, seeking a direction upon the concerned respondent to grant interest on the arrear pension for such delayed disbursement.

¶13

By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge refused to accept such contention and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

¶14

Mr. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that the delay occurred due to the incorrect recording of the name of the appellant in the PPO of his wife, and for this reason, the family pension could not be released in his favour. He further submits that the authority issuing the PPO was responsible for such delay and, as a consequence thereof, the appellant has acquired the right and is entitled to receive interest on the arrear family pension.

¶15

Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State respondents, opposed the contention of Mr. Sarkar. He submits that it was only in 2024 that, for the first time, the appellant drew the attention of the concerned respondent to such error that had occurred in 2013 and thereafter. He further submits that, prior to 2024, the

¶16

¶17

appellant did not take any effective steps to have his name corrected in the PPO issued in favour of his wife.

¶18

He further submits that, for that reason, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondents. He submits that the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that, when the appellant moved the writ petition being WPA 20520 of 2024, he could have raised this issue. However, he chose not to do so, and now he cannot reinvigorate the claim.

¶19

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

¶20

Indisputably, the PPO was issued in favour of the appellant’s wife in 2013, in which the appellant’s name was incorrectly spelt. The appellant’s wife passed away in 2016. However, the said error was pointed out by the appellant for the first time in 2024 by filing a writ petition, being WPA 20520 of 2024. The said writ petition was filed primarily seeking a direction upon the concerned respondent to effect necessary correction in the PPO dated 27th June, 2013. It is also an admitted position that no prayer was made therein for grant of interest on arrears of family pension. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the principle of constructive res judicata and observed that the petitioner is estopped from reinvigorating such claim by preferring another writ petition.

¶21

The learned Single Judge further observed that no contemporaneous steps were taken by the appellant for correction of his name in the said PPO and, as such, in the

¶22

¶23

facts of the case, the delay cannot be attributed to the State. Such reasoning cannot be faulted.

¶24

Therefore, we do not find any infirmity and perversity in the order under appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and its connected application are dismissed.

¶25

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶26

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶27

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Sushil Kumar Dutta v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Dutta v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St. Joseph'S High School (H.S.) & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Goutam Basu Vs State of West Bengal& Ors.

State of W B & Ors. Vs Mira Shaw & Ors.

Sukla Panja (Rajak) Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The State of Wb & Ors. Vs Md. Habibur Rahaman

Apurba Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.