Karabi Begum vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Affidavit of service is filed today. The State of West Bengal is represented. Mr. Moloy Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State accepts service

on behalf of the respondent nos. 2-5 who are the officers of the State of West Bengal. The husband of the petitioner after super annuation was not

getting either his pension or other retiral benefits. He moved this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. No. 15017(W) of 2013.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated July 25, 2013 was pleased to pass directions on the respondent No. 2 in that writ petition to

release the above terminal benefits to the petitioner on the basis of the communication of the respondent no. 4 dated July 12, 2012 within a period of

six weeks from the date of communication of that order together with interest @ 9% per annum for the period from the date on which it was due and

payable till the date of its actual payment. However, by the said order the co-ordinate Bench has also passed the following directions:

“The Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, is directed to fix the responsibility for delay in payment of the

above terminal benefit to the petitioner and realise the interest part from the salary of the erring officer preferably within three months or in case of his

retirement by way of raising public demand.â€​

Perhaps because responsibility was required to be fixed on a particular employee of the State of West Bengal which would naturally mean personal

prejudice to the officer in question instead of affecting pubic money this order was not given effect to.It is quite obvious the erring officers have no

problem if public money which comes only from the tax payers is wasted for their defence; but they really have a problem if their own salaries are

affected for their fault. Unfortunately while waiting for respondents to comply with the order of the High Court which had achieved finality, the

husband of the writ petitioner died possibly unsung and that of course does not concern either the State of West Bengal or the Officer for whom he

died in penury.

Mr. Arefin, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife/petitioner is not the just legal heir but the nominee of the retired and

now deceased employee and, therefore, release of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner shall be a valid release and shall discharge the

respondents from all liabilities. At paragraph ‘5’ of the writ petition the writ petitioner has affirmed that she is the nominee in the service book

of the deceased employee and she has affirmed the statement contained in paragraph ‘5’ as being true to the knowledge of her.

 On the basis of this affirmation as true to knowledge and since today the respondents are represented through their learned advocates, I pass an

interim order directing that the respondent no. 5, Treasury Officer, Burdwan office at Court compound to make payment of the entire amount of

pensionery benefits and arrear which are due within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this order regardless whether there is

an election or storm going on. Such compliance is to be reported through the learned Registrar General of this Court or such other competent officer

of the registry who is in attendance on May 25, 2018 in the vacation bench of this Court on which date this Court shall be sitting.

So far as payment of current family pension is concerned, the same shall be considered on June 5, 2018 after the Court reopens. On such date the

respondents’ learned advocate shall come back with full instructions. So far as the questions of payment of interest and who is liable are

concerned, I direct the respondent No. 4, Director, Directorate of Pension as also Secretary, Department of School Education and Secretary,

Department of Madrasah Education to file three separate affidavits within June 4, 2018 fixing the liability on the employee concerned and also

explaining why this operation has not been done in the last five years. For the present filing of such affidavits would be sufficient. If the affidavits are

not filed then the question of personal appearance of the officers of the State shall also be considered. This matter is treated as heard in part.