The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of pension schemes to government employees is determined by the date of their appointment and the fulfillment of service rules, and non-completion of certain qualifications does not render the appointment irregular.

JUDGMENT

Suman Shyam, J. - Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent no.1 ; Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 ; Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. R. Barpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent no. 6.

2. The petitioner before this Court is the widow of Late Maniram Basumatary, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher in an L.P.School under the respondents. Since the petitioner's husband was a State Government employee, hence, after his death, the writ petitioner had approached the department seeking family pension. However, by the impugned order dated 20/06/2017 issued by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Directorate of Pension, the petitioner's prayer was rejected on the ground that her deceased husband was not entitled to receive pension. Hence, this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. By the interim order dated 19/11/2018 passed in this proceeding, this court had directed the respondents to pay provisional pension to the writ petitioner from the month of December 2018. Accordingly, the petitioner is receiving provisional pension.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner's deceased husband Maniram Basumatary was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 404 No. Hatipota LP School on fixed stipend of Rs. 1800/- per month against the vacancy arising out of death/retirement of one Bireswar Ray. Maniram Basumatary died in-harness on 07/02/2016 leaving behind his widow, i.e. the writ petitioner and a minor child. In the appointment order dated 12/03/2001, it was mentioned that the appointee would be deputed to undergo Junior Basic Training and shall be allowed to draw the regular time scale of pay as per ROP Rules 1998 only upon completion of the basic training. Pursuant to the appointment order dated 12/03/2001, the petitioner's husband had joined the post of Assistant Teacher. Subsequently, on being deputed for the basic training, he had undergone the same and had successfully completed the same on 20/09/2007. Thereafter, by the order dated 24/10/2007 issued by the respondent no. 4, it was notified that the petitioner's husband would be entitled to draw regular time scale of pay of Rs. 3130/- to Rs. 6600/- per month plus other allowances, as admissible under the Rules, with effect from 20/09/2007.In the meantime, the Government of Assam, in the Finance Department had issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated 06/10/2009 introducing the "The New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme " (here-in-after referred to as the "NPS"). THe NPS was made applicable to all new entrants joining State Government Service on regular basis against sanctioned vacant post(s) after 01/02/2005. Subsequently, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Pension & Public Grievances Department had issued OM dated 14/01/2016 notifying that in view of introduction of the NPS, the Assam Service(Pension) Rules, 1969 and the Assam Services Extraordinary Family Pension Rules 1963 was amended so as not to extend coverage of benefits of invalid pension/ extraordinary family pension/ special family pension etc. to the Government servants appointed on or after 01/02/2005. Relying upon the OM dated 14/01/2016, the prayer for family pension made by the writ petitioner was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the regular appointment of the petitioner's husband was on 20/09/2007 i.e after 01/02/2005. Therefore, the core controversy arising in this case is pertaining to the question as to whether, the date of appointment of the petitioner's husband was 12/03/2001 or was it 20/09/2007 for the purpose of determining his entitlements under the OM dated 06/10/2009.

4. The respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit, inter- alia, contending that the petit