Calcutta High Court
WP.ST/54/2026 of KALPANA SEAL Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 16 September 2026
Court No.04 B.K.N W.P.S.T. 54 of 2026 Kalpana Seal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. L. R. Mondal, Ms. Sk. Kiran … for the Petitioner. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP, Ms. Runu Mukherjee … for the State. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner. 2. The writ
S/L 24
16.09.2026
Court No.04
B.K.N
W.P.S.T. 54 of 2026
Kalpana Seal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. L. R. Mondal,
Ms. Sk. Kiran
… for the Petitioner.
Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP,
Ms. Runu Mukherjee
… for the State.
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. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner.
2. The writ petitioner is claiming the family pension dues etc. on account of the civil death of the employee namely, Sri Anil Chandra Seal who according to the writ petitioner is missing since 14.02.2002. In support of her claim to be wife of the employee she relies upon a nomination allegedly submitted by the deceased while during his lifetime dated 19.02.1998. The nomination is claimed in respect of dues under the General Provident Fund. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in- opposition .
3. The learned AGP has drawn attention of the Court towards an earlier nomination in respect of the same dues submitted by the employee during his lifetime wherein one Smt. Sabitarani Seal is the nominee recorded in the service book of the employee.
4. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner, however, submits that the nomination in respect of General Provident Fund submitted in 1998 leaves no scope for doubt that the petitioner can claim as wife of the deceased employee.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the records.
6. We find that at the time of giving the alleged nomination dated 19.02.1998, the employee did not mention any reason for giving the name of a new nominee (petitioner). The writ petitioner also has not stated anything about Smt. Sabitarani Seal, who was earlier nominated as wife by the employee in the service book, during his lifetime.
7. There is nothing on record to show under what circumstances the name of the nominee was, if at all, changed from Smt. Sabitarani Seal to Kalpana Seal whether the same was done on account of demise of Smt. Sabitarani Seal, divorce; or any other sustainable reason is not borne from the record.
8. We, therefore, find no claim made out by the writ petitioner of a subsisting right which can be enforced by issuance of a direction by the Tribunal; or by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. However, we do not propose to foreclose the claim of the writ petitioner and leave it to her to pursue the issue in appropriate civil remedy in accordance with law.
10. The writ petition is dismissed with such liberty.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Partha Pratim Roy, J.)