Point of Law: Under the provisions of Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, the petitioner would be entitled to family pension on his death.

JUDGMENT :

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.

1. Heard Ms. S.P. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, being the authorities under the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, being the authorities under the Pension and Public Grievances Department, Assam, Ms. N. Lohe, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, the Principal Accountant General, Assam and Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6, being the authorities under the KAAC.

2. The petitioner is the second wife of the deceased Sar-im Teron, who was a Multi Purpose Worker under the Joint Director of Health Services, Karbi Anglong.

3. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents in the Health and Family Welfare Department upon obtaining the information from the Department has made a statement that the deceased husband of the petitioner was otherwise an employee under the Health and Family Welfare Department, although his services was under the control of the KAAC and that he was in a pensionable service.

4. This writ petition is instituted by Binota Ronghangpi, wife of the deceased Sar-im Teron claiming for family pension on his death. Admittedly, the deceased Sar-im Teron was in service for a period more than one year and therefore under the provisions of Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, the petitioner would be entitled to family pension on his death.

5. It is also stated that the authorities in the KAAC would be the appropriate authority to process the pension papers of the petitioner. An apprehension is raised by Mr. J. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents in the KAAC that the petitioner is actually the second wife of the deceased Sar-im Teron and therefore, a question may arise whether she would be entitled to the family pension.

6. Ms. S.P. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that Rosetina Bongrungpi was the first wife of the deceased Sar-im Teron and during the lifetime of the deceased Sar-im Teron, she had married another person and therefore, lost her status as a wife of the deceased Sar-im Teron. Secondly, it is stated that the son of the deceased Sar-im Teron through the first wife Rosetina Bongrungpi is also presently living with the petitioner second wife and it is she who is taking care of the son of the deceased.

7. If the aforesaid circumstance as stated by the petitioner that as the first wife had already married during the lifetime of the deceased, under the law, she would disentitle herself to have the status as the first wife of the deceased for the purpose of family pension.

8. Accordingly, the Joint Director, Health Services, Karbi Anglong, being the respondent No. 5 is directed to examine the aspect and pass a reasoned order on the entitlement of the petitioner for family pension. The reasoned order for payment of family of pension to the petitioner be passed within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the family pension be paid immediately thereafter. If the situation would be that it would be difficult for the Joint Director to determine on the status of the alleged first wife, the matter be not kept pending and the pensionary orders be passed in favour of the petitioner subject to any subsequent objection that may be raised.

9. Writ Petition stands disposed of as indicated above.