- (1.) The petitioner's husband namely Ram Kamal Giri, (since deceased) was appointed as an assistant primary teacher in 720 Chintamonipur Radhakrishna Nagar Free Primary School. Unfortunately, husband of the petitioner had expired on 15th October, 1986. The petitioner thereafter visited the office of concerned department on very many occasions but retiral benefits or family pension has not been disbursed in favour of the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent no. 3 and 5 on 27th October, 2014 vide annexure P3. The specific claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has had legal and fundamental right to receive family pension and all other pensionary benefits and that the circulars issued by the Government are in favour of the petitioner to get such family pension.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension and accordingly, the respondents may be directed to release such family pension in favour of the petitioner with interest along with the retiral benefits of her husband. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents submitted that the husband of the petitioner opted for the scheme of contributory provident fund and he never opted for DCRB scheme of 1981 prior to his death. It is further submitted that the entire amount towards contributory provident fund of the husband of the petitioner had already been disbursed way back in the year 1988. Learned Advocate for the State respondents further submitted that during his lifetime, the husband of the petitioner never raised the plea of pension and the petitioner also did not pray for any such pension for last 30 years. The petitioner also could not show as to why there was delay in filing such writ application for about 30 years.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Primary School Council has submitted a report of the Chairman, South 24 Parganas District Primary School Council. It appears from the said report that the husband of the petitioner had opted the contributory provident fund scheme and accordingly a sum of Rs. 8646 and paise 37 only was paid to the present petitioner in terms of order dated 19th April, 1988. The petitioner never raised the plea of pension after getting such amount towards contributory provident fund since 1988. The petitioner could not explain the delay for about 28 years i.e. from the date of receipt of such amount towards contributory provident fund. Secondly, the State Government gave three months time period to exercise option on condition to refund the amount disbursed to the teachers towards contributory provident fund in terms of the decision of the Special Bench District Inspector of Schools (SE) and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Baidya and Ors, 2013 3 CalHN 711 . On careful scrutiny of the said decision I do not find any scope to interpret the same in favour of the petitioner. In that decision there is absolutely no clue to hold that the heirs of such primary teachers may be permitted to exercise option after the demise of the said primary teacher.;