Calcutta High Court
WPA/26674/2026 of SANTWANA BAGCHI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 24 September 2026
24.09.2026 Court No. 18 Rohan In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 26674 of 2026 Smt. Santwana Bagchi Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh Ms. Priyanka Saha … for the Petitioner Ms. Mary Datta Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh
Item No.- 38
24.09.2026
Court No. 18
Rohan
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA 26674 of 2026
Smt. Santwana Bagchi
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh
Ms. Priyanka Saha
… for the Petitioner
Ms. Mary Datta
Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh
… for the State
Mr. N. C. Bihani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh
… for the C.S.T.C.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit of service as filed is kept on record.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved that her husband is entitled to pension under the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1990.
3. The petitioner has also made a representation which was received by the authorities on April 24, 2025.
4. It appears that the representation has not yet been considered.
5. In view of the aforestated, I direct the concerned authority, being the respondent No. 4, to consider such
2 representation in the light of the decision of this Hon’ble Court in FMA 762 of 2019 (CSTC Retires’ and Pensioners’ Association & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
6. The authorities will also take into account whether the husband of the petitioner had duly exercised his option during his lifetime while he was in service. The entire process should be completed within a period of eight
(08) weeks from date.
7. The resultant order should be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)