Calcutta High Court
WP.ST/262/2025 of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Vs SONEHAR BIBI KHAN on 24 June 2026
D/L 24.06.2026 (Naba) 27 W.P.S.T. 262 of 2025 The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sonehar Bibi Khan & Ors. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, ld. A.G.P., Mr. Arghya Chatterjee ...for the State Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. Syed Mosihar Rahman ...for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Sudip Sarkar, Mr.
Ct. No.4 D/L 24.06.2026
(Naba) 27
W.P.S.T. 262 of 2025
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Vs.
Sonehar Bibi Khan & Ors.
Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, ld. A.G.P., Mr. Arghya Chatterjee
...for the State
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui,
Mr. Syed Mosihar Rahman
...for the Respondent No.1
Mr. Sudip Sarkar,
Mr. Sukdeb Sarkar,
Mr. Krishna Pada Santra
...for the Respondent No.2
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 learned advocates for the parties are present.
2. Heard the learned advocates.
3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in O.A. No. 268 of 2024. The Tribunal by the said Judgement and order directed the respondent being the appellant in the instant writ petition, the Executive Engineer, Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department & Municipal Affairs, to pass an order and to initiate the process of sanctioning family pension and other death benefits with equal share to both the wives of the deceased employee, Md. Farid Uddin Khan, namely, Sonehar Bibi Khan and Nurjahan Bibi within three months from the date of communication of this order.
2
4. The Writ Petitioner, State of West Bengal, being aggrieved by the Judgement and order passed by the Tribunal has come up with the instant writ petition.
5. Upon hearing the learned advocates and considering the facts of the case, the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, State of West Bengal, could not convince us as to the illegality of the order passed by the Tribunal and as to why both the wives of the deceased employee, who belongs to the Mohammedan Community cannot be entitled to pension.
6. No case is made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal.
7. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
8. Thus, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)