ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) A minor suing through his maternal grandmother is before this Court seeking interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both his parents were working as lecturers in a college. Sometime after his birth the parents separated. On separation the mother had his custody. In such a situation the mother died. There was then litigation for his custody between his maternal grandfather, since deceased and father. The present controversy is regarding who should receive death benefits arising on the death of the mother.
(2.) Mr. Sanjoy Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to relevant clauses in West Bengal Non-Government College Teachers' (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 2 1974. He relies on definition clause 5(p) to submit, for the purposes of gratuity and family pension, minor son is a relative included in the definition of 'family'. He then refers to clauses 30 to 32, with special emphasis on clause 32, which is extracted below:- "32. Pension payable to one member of the family : Subject to the provisions contained in the note under para 30 the pension awarded under the scheme shall not be payable to more than one member of the teacher's family at the same time. It shall first be admissible to the windows (s)/widower and then to the minor children and thereafter to mother and lastly to father. In the event of re-marriage or death of the widower the pension shall be granted to the minor children through their natural guardian. In disputed cases, however, payments shall be made through a legal guardian. Note : Payment of family pension will be any bar if at the time of entitlement, the widow or widower or unmarried daughter or son happens to be employed any where."
(3.) He submits, firstly reasoned order dated 23rd November, 2016 passed by the Director of Public Instruction, by which the said authority was of the view that the college authority shall prepare pension papers in favour of the husband, is an order passed without hearing the minor son being a relative in the matter of entitlement to the benefits. This impugned order was made pursuant to order dated 21st July, 2016 in WP 12412 (W) of 2016 [Partha Bhattacharya v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.] in which there was direction to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the husband and to any other party the authority deems necessary. He submits by reference to other annexures 3 to the writ petition, the said authority was aware of the existence of the minor son as a claimant but did inform him about any hearing. Thus impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.;