W.P. 16452(W) of 2019
Purnima Das Mahanta (Biswas)
The Union of India Ors.
Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay
Mr. Arjun Samanta
…For the petitioner
Mr. Anuran Samanta
Mr. Sudipto Panda
Mrs. Munmun Tewari
…For the State
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner, despite
being the widow of a pensioner under the Swatantrata Sainik
Samman Scheme, 1980, is being denied from the benefits of such
pension despite the demise of her husband.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities
submits that there are discrepancies in the papers sent by the State
authorities on behalf of the petitioner and the death certificate of the
previous wife of the original pensioner has not been given, since the
present petitioner is the second wife of the said pensioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents hands up copies of certain
documents, including that of an affidavit, allegedly furnished by the
petitioner where, it is pointed out, there is a discrepancy regarding
the spelling of the surname of the deceased pensioner.
It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have given a
death certificate of the first wife of the pensioner to get the benefit of
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a
Division Bench judgment of this court dated September 15, 2017
passed in FMA 432 of 2017.
It is seen from the said judgment, which is annexed at
Annexure-P9 at page-70 to the present writ petition, that the Division
Bench of this court had categorically recorded about the first
marriage of the pensioner, since deceased, and about the dissolution
of such first marriage on the basis of a mutual divorce petition.
The said judgment also recorded the details of several requests
made by the petitioner and culminated in a specific direction upon
the respondents to decide on the petitioner’s claim for family pension,
as forwarded by the State Government vide a letter dated January 5,
2015, afresh strictly in terms of the provisions of the said scheme of
1980 and to pass a reasoned order and to communicate the same to
the appellant (present petitioner).
Such exercise was directed to be completed within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of such order.
It is further seen from the said Division Bench order that the
present respondents were represented by counsel during the hearing
of the said appeal.
As such, it has to be deemed that the respondents authorities
responsible for disbursement of such family pension were well aware
of the judgment and the stipulated time frame of eight weeks for
deciding upon the application of the petitioner, upon consideration of
the documents sent by the State.
It is unfortunate that the respondent nos.1 to 3 have been
sitting tight over the matter in spite of eight weeks having passed
long back after the Division Bench passed such direction on
September 15, 2017.
The ground taken on behalf of the respondents for their
inaction and non-compliance of the Division Bench order is patently
The mere existence of the letter ‘o’ in place of ‘a’ at the end of
the surname of the deceased pensioner in one of the paragraphs of
the affidavit supplied by the petitioner cannot be a valid ground for
refusing her the benefits of the pension scheme, particularly in view
of the communications by the State, annexed to the supplementary
affidavit filed today, making it clear that proof of the marriage of the
petitioner with the deceased pensioner, the original application filed
by the deceased pensioner as well as the said affidavit in question,
were forwarded duly to the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Despite having obtained such documents and being in the
know of the Division Bench order, wherein the factum of the
dissolution of the previous marriage of the pensioner was discussed
categorically, the respondent no. 1 to 3 however, to the surprise of
this court, had the arrogance to blatantly disobey the specific
direction of the Division Bench, as indicated above, by not
considering the case of the petitioner for getting family pension, in
spite of all necessary documents having already been submitted to
the said authorities, responsible for disbursing the amount.
In such view of the matter, it is extremely unfortunate that the
high-handed attitude of the officials, being the respondent nos. 1 to
3, has resulted in the petitioner, who is otherwise an unemployed
lady, from the pension which she was entitled to, for twelve long
The petitioner has been running from pillar to post and filing
litigations, without any result due to the nonchalant attitude of the
respondent nos.1 to 3 which is thoroughly deprecated by this court.
In the opinion of this court, the documents furnished by the
petitioner, through the State authorities, as annexed to the writ
petition as well as the supplementary affidavit, were sufficient to
consider the case of the petitioner and to disburse the pension under
the scheme, as noted above, to the petitioner immediately.
Accordingly, W.P. 16452(W) of 2019 is disposed of by directing
the respondent no.3 to immediately release the arrears pension to
which the petitioner is entitled in view of her deceased husband being
an original pensioner under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman
Scheme, 1980, latest by March 4, 2020.
It is made clear, that in view of the failure of the respondent
nos. 1 to 3 to act on the direction of the Division Bench to decide on
the representation of the petitioner, it is hereby deemed that the said
respondents conceded to such application and as such no further
time ought to be wasted by issuing a further direction upon the
respondents to consider the matter, thereby deteriorating the plight
of the petitioner.
It is further made clear that the aforesaid direction, to disburse
the all arrears of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman
Scheme, 1980, to which the petitioner’s deceased husband late
Narayan Das Mohanta was eligible, to the petitioner within March 4,
2020, is mandatory in nature.
After clearing off the arrears within such period, the
respondent no.3 shall be continuing to pay the said pension to the
petitioner on a monthly basis as per such scheme.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)