KAJAL MISHRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claiming herself to be the legally married wife of Rama Kanta Mishra, the respondent no. 4, who was working as a Library Attendant in Gobra Indranarayan Keshtra Mohan High School and retired from his service in the year 2009, has come out with a case that while retiring from service, her husband, in terms of the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981, has submitted pension papers, but most dishonestly naming the respondent no. 5 as his nominee and excluding her. It is her further case at once she came to learn about the aforesaid facts, she approached the concerned District Inspector of School for inclusion of her name in the records as the legal heirs of her husband, the respondent no. 4 removing the name of respondent no. 5, so that she be entitled to the family pension, however, no action has yet been taken by the respondent authority.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating her case noted herein above, invited the attention of this court to the Form of application for family pension prescribed in terms of paragraph 23 and Form for pension and gratuity in terms of paragraph 31 of the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981. He then contended that the respondent no. 5 cannot be nominated as the person eligible for family pension, since the respondent no. 4, a Hindu male, illegally married the respondent no. 5 during the subsistence of his first marriage with the writ petitioner and when his first wife, the writ petitioner is still alive. It is further contended not only that the respondent no. 5 has no legal status, she not being a family member of the pensioner is also not entitled to any benefit of family pension in terms of the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981. It is, therefore, urged the respondent authority at once be directed to remove the name of the respondent no. 5 from the records relating to pension and incorporate the writ petitioner in her place.

(3.) On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent no. 4, affidavit in opposition is used and it is categorically denied that he had any relation with the respondent no. 5 and nominated her as alleged. It is then submitted since the writ petitioner has abandoned the respondent no. 4 and his child long back and living an adulterous life with another person, he has nominated his son Ambarish Mishra as his legal heir in terms of the regulation 22. It is then vehemently urged that the respondent no. 4 has every legal right to nominate anyone as his legal heirs according to his own choice and can also deprive his legally married wife from such right where she abandoned her and living an adulterous life.