Brother Not Covered For Purpose Of Family Pension, When Eligible Claimant Mother Never Availed It: Calcutta HC

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty held that the brother of a deceased government teacher does not qualify as “family” under Clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1981, and he cannot claim family pension arrears, especially when the original beneficiary (mother) never claimed the benefit during her lifetime. Background Facts The deceased was working as an assistant teacher. He died while in service. He left behind his mother, his wife, two sisters, and one brother. Subsequently, his wife remarried. His mother later passed away. The brother obtained a succession certificate and claimed the pensionary benefits of his deceased brother. However, his claim was rejected. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim. The school authorities forwarded the papers, but the Assistant Director issued audit observations. Further no steps were taken. Therefore, brother filed another writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, he expired. Therefore, his wife, son, and daughter were substituted as his legal heirs. The Single Judge refused the prayer for family pension. It was held that the brother did not come within the definition of family under the Pension Scheme 1981. However, the Single Judge directed release of provident fund and gratuity to the substituted petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant-brother filed the appeal before the Calcutta High Court. It was argued by the appellant that the Single Judge did not consider the fact that the wife of the deceased teacher remarried. Therefore, the mother of the deceased became entitled to the family pension from that date until she expired. It was further argued that after mother's death, the brother of deceased earned a right to avail the arrear of family pension accumulated for that period, but the Single Judge ignored this issue. The appellant also contended that the respondents delayed the disbursement of the pensionary benefits, therefore, the Court should have directed payment of interest at 12%, as interest is not a penalty but a normal accretion upon capital. The authorities had withheld the admitted dues, hence they were liable to pay interest. On the other hand, it was argued by the State respondents that the mother never submitted any application for claiming the benefits of family pension. It was submitted that the brother of deceased could not have claimed arrears of family pension when the mother herself never claimed such benefits during her lifetime. It was further argued that the appellant delayed his grievance. After the first order was passed in 2018, papers were forwarded and the file was returned with audit observations in January 2019, but the appellant did not address those objections. He filed a writ petition in 2020. Therefore, the delay was not attributable to the State authorities. Findings and Observations of the Court It was noted by the Court that the mother never claimed the benefits of the family pension. It was further observed that the mother was a pensioner. She was receiving benefits on account of her deceased husband. It was observed that the Single Judge rightly refused to exercise discretion and grant arrears of family pension for that period to the brother. It was held that the brother of the deceased does not come within the definition of family for the purpose of family pension under Clause 5(s)(2) of the Pension Scheme 1981. It was further observed that appellant got right to claim pensionary benefits only after he obtained the succession certificate on 13th November 2017. However, appropriate steps were not taken by the appellant to answer the audit observations contained in the order dated 9th January 2019. It was held by the Division Bench that the delay to settle the pension claim is not totally attributable to the State authorities. Consequently, the claim of the appellant was denied by the Division Bench. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-brother was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : Smt. Ranu Chatterjee & ors. vs. State of West Bengal & ors. Case No. : FMA 400 of 2026 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 Counsel for the Appellants : Prasenjit Mukherjee, Sima Ghosh Counsel for the Respondents : Supriyo Chattoapadhyay, AGP, Gourav DasClick Here To Read/Download Order

Brother Not Covered For Purpose Of Family Pension, When Eligible Claimant Mother Never Availed It: Calcutta HC

Namdev Singh

Tags