LAKSHMI GUHO@GUHA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 1486 of 2026

Smt. Lakshmi Guho @ Guha
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Ms. Srishti Sarkar

For the State : Mr. Dipankar Sen
Mr. Narendranath Bhattacharya

Heard on : 01.09.2026

Judgment on : 01.09.2026

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a
direction upon the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent
no.3, to sanction and release family pension in favour of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner happens to be the daughter of the deceased employee
and is a divorcee. The pension sanctioning authority on one reason or the
other hyper technical plea has refused to allow the family pension in
favour of the petitioner, though the application is pending since 2018.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties I find
that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has been candid

2
WPA 1486 of 2026
enough in submitting that the identity of the petitioner as the daughter of
the deceased employee is not in dispute. However, since the petitioner has
failed to remove certain discrepancies in the documents submitted, the
petitioner’s claim has been held back. He has also produced the copy of
th
the instructions dated 13 August, 2026. Let copies of such instruction as
placed on record be retained with the file.
5. From the above instructions it would appear that certain objections
have been raised. A perusal of the above objection would reveal that the
pension sanctioning authority had failed to appreciate the decree for
st
divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1 Court, at
th
Jalpaiguri in Mat. Suit 84 of 1995 dated 8 December, 1998, and has
observed that though the petitioner is known by the name of Lakshmi
Guho, in the divorce proceedings she has been referred as Lakshmi Rani
Dey (Guho) and also known as Lakshmi Seth.
th
6. I find from the perusal of the decree dated 8 December, 1998 that
though the maiden surname of the petitioner is Guho, the surname of the
petitioner’s divorced husband was Dey. Records reveal that the said
matrimonial suit had been filed by Paresh Ch. Dey, the petitioner’s
husband wherein the petitioner has been referred to as Lakshmi Rani Dey
(Guho) which includes both the petitioner’s surname before her marriage
and surname of her husband. This Court does not find any irregularity in
the petitioner’s husband referring the petitioner as Lakshmi Rani Dey
(Guho) by retaining the surname Guho. The father’s name of the petitioner
as Nripen Ch. Guha has also been mentioned. It appears that the cause
title of the decree also recorded that the petitioner is now known as

3
WPA 1486 of 2026
Lakshmi Seth as wife of Samar Seth. On this description, I find that the
learned advocate for the petitioner has clarified that the suit was decreed
ex parte and the cause title of the suit was also not prepared by the
petitioner but by her late husband. As rightly pointed out by the advocate
for the petitioner I find that the ordering portion of the decree seeks to
dissolve the marriage between the petitioner’s husband Paresh Ch. Dey
and the petitioner. The said decree cannot constitute to be a decree for
declaration that the petitioner is the wife of Samar Seth, who has been
arrayed as respondent no.2 in the above suit. The aforesaid decree has
been completely misread by the pension sanctioning authority.
7. This apart, I find that the pension sanctioning authority has also
raised the issue of there being discrepancy in recording the name of the
deceased employee in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and other
documents disclosed by the petitioner. I am of the view so long the pension
sanctioning authority does not dispute the petitioner to be the daughter of
the deceased employee, the aforesaid discrepancy should have been
overlooked, having regard to the affidavit sworn by the petitioner before
st th
the learned 1 Class Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri on 14 November,
2024. The aforesaid only appears to a minor discrepancy in mismatch of
the spelling of the petitioner’s father’s name. This apart, it would also
transpire that the pension sanctioning authority has insisted for
submission of divorce certificate. This Court is unable to appreciate the
requirement for filing of such a certificate especially, when the decree for
divorce has been filed by the petitioner.

4
WPA 1486 of 2026
8. In the peculiar facts, I am of the view the observation made by the
Executive Engineer, North Bengal Planning & Design Division P.W. Dte.,
th
Jalpaiguri, in his communication dated 9 February, 2026, addressed to
the petitioner whereby he has called upon the petitioner to produce further
documents for processing the petitioner’s application cannot be sustained
and the same is accordingly set aside.
9. The concerned pensioning sanctioning authority is directed to revisit
the order in the light of the observation made hereinabove and take a
decision in the matter within a week from the date of communication of
this order and issue necessary PPO (Family Pension) in favour of the
petitioner.
10. Needless to note, upon issuance of the PPO, the petitioner shall be
entitled to the arrear pension along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent
per annum for the period for which the same has been illegally denied i.e.
from the date of the application till such time the same is actually
disbursed.
11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made
available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.


(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J . )
sb
A.R. (Court)