TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging a judgment dated 25th June, 2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 1311 of 2014.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner's mother, namely, Chhaya Pal (Raha) was initially appointed on 8th September, 1970 as a staff nurse in West Bengal Nursing Service and she retired on 31st January, 2001. She married one Surendra Nath Pal (respondent no.7) and the petitioner is their daughter and she is still unmarried. The respondent no.7 deserted the petitioner's mother and married one Abha Rani Kar (Pal) (respondent no.8) on 14th December, 1980. The respondent no.7 was employed as a librarian in ICV Polytechnic at Jhargram and he has presently retired and is enjoying pension. The respondent no.8 was employed at Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and from her matrimonial relationship with the respondent no.7, one male child and one female child were born. After the demise of her mother, the petitioner made an application for grant of family pension on 10th July, 2009, as she was unmarried and totally dependent upon the income of her mother. In the midst thereof, family pension was sanctioned in favour of the respondent no.7. The petitioner's claim for family pension was ultimately rejected on the basis of an observation of the Finance Department to the effect that "the Administrative Department may be informed that Kumari Senjuti Pal, unmarried, D / 0. Lt. (Smt.) Chhaya Pal will not be eligible for family pension as the spouse of the deceased employee is still alive as per existing rule" as communicated by the respondent no.2 vide memorandum dated 11th March, 2013. By a further memorandum dated 23rd August, 2013, the respondent no.2 intimated the petitioner that the opinion of the appropriate authority as regards settlement of leave salary was to the effect that "the applicant may be asked to produce succession certificate or no -objection from her biological father, S.N. Pal. Otherwise we may be guided by Rule 168B of WBSR Part -I".
(3.) A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim for family pension observing that the word 'remarriage' in Rule 104 of The West Bengal Services (Death -cum -Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the DCRB Rules) means 'legal marriage' and that the second marriage of the respondent no.7 with the respondent no.8 was a void marriage and that there was no divorce among the petitioner's mother and the respondent no.7 and that as such there was no infirmity in the observation of the Finance Department to the effect that the petitioner can avail family pension only after the respondent no.7 expires.;