- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16th September, 2014 passed in WP 25951(W) of 2014 (Renuka Khatua vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, holding, inter alia, as under: "True it is that the petitioner's husband did not survive to see the notification dated 16th June, 2014 which was issued pursuant to the order of the Special Bench dated 16th July, 2013, however, the petitioner has presented this writ petition on 8th September, 2014 with an instruction that the same should be listed on 16th September, 2014, praying for, inter alia, the following order: a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities and their men and agents to forthwith allow the petitioner to exercise the benefits in terms of Memo no. 749-SE(L)/SL/5S- 56/13(Pt.V) dated 13/06/2014 under the Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981. b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no.4 to forthwith allow the petitioner and/or grant the petitioner to exercise the option and to give effect to the representations of the petitioner dated 18.08.2014 and 20.8.2014 being annexure P-5 of the writ petition without any further delay and to take all steps to implement the said representations. I am afraid, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on this writ petition. The Special Bench in its order dated 16th July, 2013 did not expressly or by necessary implication permit the widows of teachers to exercise option. Neither the order of the Special Bench dated 16th July, 2013, nor the notification issued in compliance thereof provide any scope for the widow of a retired teacher to opt for pension-cum-gratuity. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim a right which was not conferred by the Special Bench by its order and in exercise of writ powers, it would be an impermissible exercise to tinker with the order of the Special Bench. Even otherwise, the time limit within which the option could be exercised in terms of the notification dated 13th June, 2014 has expired on 12th September, 2014. The writ petition has been listed on the date the writ petitioner's learned advocate wished it to be listed. The period for exercise of option having lapsed, it is beyond my authority to extend the time for submission of option. Mr. Panda, learned advocate for the petitioner has cited a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (State of Rajasthan vs Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, 1991 AIR(SC) 1743). The decision does not come to the aid of the petitioner since not only were the facts absolutely different, no law appears to have been laid down therein that would operate as a binding precedent. It appears that since the widows of the Contributory Provident Fund retirees did not opt for the pension scheme as and when chances were given to them to switch over to the pension scheme and the retirees died after availing the contributory provident fund benefits, an ex-gratia payment was proposed to be granted by the State Government. The appeal was allowed considering the proposal that was advanced by setting aside the order under appeal. For these reasons, the writ petition stand dismissed, without costs."
(2.) It is evident from the facts that the appellant, the wife of late Haripada Khatua, who was a primary teacher in a primary school, had retired on 31st August, 1994. While in service, the appellant's husband opted for the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme and in terms of the option exercised by him, he received the retiral benefits.
(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner, that is the widow of the deceased teacher, has prayed for a direction upon the State to allow her "to exercise the benefits in terms of Memo No. 749-SE(L)/SL/5S-56/13(Pvt-V) dated 13/06/2014 under the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981". It appears that the said scheme was formulated pursuant to the judgment dated 16th July, 2013 passed by the Special Bench in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Abhijit Baidya & Ors.,, 2013 3 CalLJ 178 (Cal)), wherein certain directions were given, particularly in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 77 thereof in answer the questions framed in paragraph 9 of the said judgment.;