Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) In the instant case, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the enhanced family pension which is due to the petitioner, the widower of the deceased employee, who was receiving pension has been stopped in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 1 lth February, 2002 issued by the Assistant Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal. From the impugned letter it appears that this letter was addressed to the Pension Disbursement Officer by directing the said officer that the petitioner would be entitled to enhanced family pension not from the date of death of the petitioner as opined by the Government of Finance Department Order No F(Pen) 866 dated 28th November, 2001. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance to the West Bengal Recognised Non- Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum- Retirement) Benefit Scheme, 1981 to contend that under Clause 25(b) of the said Scheme the petitioner is entitled to receive the enhanced family pension with effect from the date of death of the pensioner, the petitioner's wife, since deceased. In adjudicating this matter hence the interpretation of Clause 25(b) is necessary. Clause 25(b) reads thus:- "25(b) - In the event of death after retirement the family pension at enhanced rate shall be payable up to the date on which the deceased employee concerned would have attained the age of 65 years had he servived for 7 years, whichever period is less, but in no case the amount of enhanced family pension shall exceed the pension sanctioned to the employee concerned at the time of retirement. However, in cases when the amount of normal pension exceeds the amount of pension sanctioned at the time of retirement, the enhanced family pension shall not be less than the amount of normal family pension. The pension sanctioned at the time of retirement shall be the pension inclusive of the part of pension which the retired employee may have commuted before death."
(3.) On a bare reading of the said clause it appears that in the event of death the enhanced family pension is available and such enhanced rate is payable upto the date on which the deceased employee concerned would have attained the age of 65 years had he survived for 7 years whichever period is less. On a bare reading of the said provision it appears that the cause of action of payment of enhanced family pension will start from the date of death of the pensioner and not from the date of retirement of the pensioner. Having regard to such position, the impugned letter dated 11th February, 2002 issued by the Assistant Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal advising the Pension Disbursement Officer that the enhanced pension to be paid from the date of retirement is not legal and valid. Hence it is set aside and quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is legally entitled to get enhanced family pension with effect from the date of death of the pensioner, the deceased wife of the petitioner which in the instant case with effect from 14.12.1999 till seven years as the seven years period is less than the period when the deceased employee would have attained the age of 65 years had she survived. The consequential order of deduction of the excess amount as appearing in the Annexure 'P-3' is accordingly set aside and quashed. From the records it appears that the petitioner was granted enhanced family pension for two years only. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the enhanced family pension in favour of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court for a total period of seven years with effect from 14.12.99. The arrear' amounts which is already payable to the petitioner, to be released within a month from this date with interest @18% per annum as the enhanced family pension is also a property in the hands of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court wherein it is held that all the retirement benefits are the property in the hands of the employee. Since the petitioner has been deprived of to enjoy the aid amount relying upon the Apex Court judgment passed in the case Executive Engineer, Dhankanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa v. N.C. Budharaj, (2001)2 S.C.C. 721, a judgment of Constitution Bench, the amount of interest is accordingly passed. In the said judgment the Apex Court held "that the basic proposition of law that a person deprived of use of money to rich he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation by whatever name it may be called, namely interest, compensation or damages and this proposition is unmistakable and valid; the efficacy and binding nature of such law cannot be either diminished or whittled down.";