The Calcutta High Court ruled a deceased teacher’s brother is not “family” for pension under the 1981 Scheme. It upheld denial of died-in-harness benefits, noting no claim was made by the mother, the eligible beneficiary under rules.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court, while hearing a petition concerning the release of service-related benefits payable on the death of a teacher, has held that the deceased teacher’s brother would not fall within the term “family” for the purposes of family pension under Clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1981. The Court also noted that the deceased teacher’s mother had never raised a claim for the benefits of her son.
The dispute arose in an appeal against a Single Judge’s decision in a writ petition filed by Chandranath Chatterjee, who was aggrieved by the non-disbursement of the service benefits / “died-in-harness” benefits of his brother.
Allowing the appeal against the Single Judge’s ruling, as stated in the text provided, the Division Bench ultimately dismissed the appeal. In its decision, a Division Bench comprising Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty observed:
“In the writ petition, no document was annexed to establish that Namita at all claimed the benefits of family pension for the period from 12.03.2003 to 19.05.2014. No contemporaneous steps were taken claiming such benefits. She, in fact, was a pensioner and got the benefits on account of his deceased husband. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge, in our opinion, rightly refused to exercise discretion and to grant the arrears of family pension for the period from 12.03.2003 to 19.05.2014 to Chandranath moreso when being the brother of the deceased, he does not come within the definition of family for the purpose of family pension under clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme 1981.”
Advocacy: Advocate Prasenjit Mukherjee appeared for the Appellant. Additional Government Pleader Supriyo Chattoapadhyay appeared for the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case traces back to 2002, when Siddhinath Chatterjee, working as an assistant teacher, died in harness. He left behind his mother Namita Chatterjee, his wife Munmun Bhattacharjee, two sisters, and one brother Chandranath.
Thereafter, Munmun remarried, and Namita died in 2014. In 2017, Chandranath obtained a succession certificate and sought pensionary benefits of his deceased brother, but his claim was rejected.
In 2017, he filed a writ petition. The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the documents and process Chandranath’s claim. When no action followed, Chandranath again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. During the pendency of that writ petition, Chandranath died. In his place, his wife, son, and daughter were substituted.
The Single Judge denied family pension to Chandranath on the ground that, as the deceased teacher’s brother, he did not meet the definition of “family” under Clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1981. However, the Single Judge ordered that the respondents disburse the provident fund and gratuity accumulated in favour of the deceased teacher to the substituted writ petitioners, subject to proof of their status as legal heirs.
Legal Reasoning:
On examining the record, the Bench noted that in the writ petition, no document was produced to show that Namita, the deceased teacher’s mother, had claimed family pension for the period from March 12, 2003 to May 19, 2014. The Bench also found that no prompt or contemporaneous steps had been taken to pursue such benefits.
The Court further reasoned:
“Chandranath’s brother expired on 13.01.2002. Chandranath’s right to claim pensionary benefits crystallised only after he obtained the succession certificate on 13.11.2017. Appropriate steps were not taken by Chandranath to answer the audit observations contained in the order dated 09.01.2019. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay to settle the pension claim is totally attributable to the State authorities.”
Addressing the issue of interest, the Bench stated that payment of interest falls within the ambit of the expression “just,” but that the Court should exercise restraint before directing the State to bear an added financial burden.
Consequently, the Bench dismissed the appeal and held,
“In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is inexpedient to direct the State to pay interest to the writ petitioners, as claimed.”
Cause Title: Smt. Ranu Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal FMA 400 of 2026
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE