Calcutta High Court
WPA/21507/2026 of ASHEK KHAN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 16 September 2026
AD/09/18 266312 NANDY (DISMISSED) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/21507/2026 ASHEK KHAN VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Jakir Hossain, Advocate (online) ……for the Petitioner Mr. D.N. Ray, learned G.P. Ms. Soma
AD/09/18
266312
NANDY
(DISMISSED)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA/21507/2026
ASHEK KHAN
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Jakir Hossain, Advocate (online)
……for the Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Ray, learned G.P.
Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. Kaustav Seal, Advocate
……for the State
Ms. Tapasi Sinha Palit, Advocate
……for the Respondent No. 5
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. The petitioner is aggrieved that he has not been given the full pension payable on the death of his father.
2. The petitioner's father was an employee in the Health Department in the district of Paschim Medinipur, who expired sometime in August 1996.
3. The petitioner's mother had received half pension, as the other half was paid to the second wife of the petitioner's father, by the authorities.
4. A succession case was initiated sometime in 2003 and was disposed of on October 5, 2007, in favour of the first wife. The said order of October 5, 2007, was never served on the authority by the mother of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has today, after the lapse of 19 years, approached this Court seeking an order on the basis of a representation made on July 21, 2026. This is nothing but an attempt to revive a stale claim.
6. The petitioner cannot have any right over and above those of his mother. The petitioner has P a g e | 2
other siblings, whom he has not arrayed as parties in the instant proceedings. He has merely relied upon a no-objection letter given by his sister, without any other similar no-objection or consent from his elder brother.
7. This is a devious attempt by the petitioner to appropriate the usufructs of the pensionary benefits of the father.
8. This application is utterly misconceived and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)