IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
USHA ADHIKARI W/O LATE DURGA PRASAD UPADHYAYA – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2431 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 - Rule 140 and 21 - Died While He Was In Service - Family Pension - Husband of petitioner who was appointed as a Tax Collector later on was promoted to post of Gaon Panchayat Secretary died while he was still in service - This writ petition is instituted by wife of deceased employee on grievance of not being paid family pension. Para 4
Finding of the Court :
Admittedly deceased husband of petitioner having appointed, promoted and died had completed more than one year of service in order to make petitioner entitled for family pension under Rule 140-C of Rules of 1969 - Family pension would be applicable if under Rules, deceased employee was in a pensionable service and entitled to pension - Submission of respondents that there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against petitioner when he died in Court view, cannot be a reason to arrive at any conclusion that deceased husband of petitioner was not entitled to pension - Deprivation of pension can be made only under Rule 21 of Rules of 1969, which inter-alia, provides that if there was a disciplinary or a criminal proceeding, either contemplated or pending, against a Government employee, pension can be withheld - But said provision in respect of withholding pension of a Government employee would be inapplicable once Government employee dies, as there can be no further occasion to either continue with disciplinary proceeding or to contemplate disciplinary proceeding and therefore, condition precedent to invoking Rule 21 of Rules of 1969 would no longer exist on death of Government employee - From such point of view, it cannot be said that husband of petitioner was not in a pensionable service so as to disentitle petitioner to family pension - Accordingly, respondents in Panchayat and Rural Development Department are directed to process family pension of petitioner and complete same and bring it to its logical end within a period of 6(six) weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Konwar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 5, being the authorities under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 5, being the authorities under the Pension and Public Grievance Department and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, the Treasury Officer, Kamrup(M).
2. The husband of the petitioner Durga Prasad Upadhaya who was appointed as a Tax Collector of Rajapara Gaon Panchayat on 01.03.1976, later on was promoted to the post of Gaon Panchayat Secretary on 16.09.1996 died on 25.09.2017 while he was still in service. This writ petition is instituted by the wife of the deceased employee on the grievance of not being paid the family pension.
3. Mr. K. Konwar, learned counsel for the respondents in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department states that there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against the deceased husband of the petitioner when he died and therefore, the respondents are not further processing the family pension of the petitioner.
4. The family pension is governed by Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules of 1969’) which inter-alia, provides that if a Government employee dies in service after having rendered more than one year of service, in such event, the family would be entitled to a family pension. Admittedly, the deceased husband of the petitioner having appointed on 01.03.1976, promoted on 16.09.1996 and died on 25.09.2017, had completed more than one year of service in order to make the petitioner entitled for family pension under Rule 140-C of the Rules of 1969. Family pension would be applicable if under the Rules, the deceased employee was in a pensionable service and entitled to pension. The submission of the respondents that there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner when he died in our view, cannot be a reason to arrive at any conclusion that the deceased husband of the petitioner was not entitled to pension. Deprivation of pension can be made only under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, which inter-alia, provides that if there was a disciplinary or a criminal proceeding, either contemplated or pending, against a Government employee, the pension can be withheld. But the said provision in respect of withholding the pension of a Government employee would be inapplicable once the Government employee dies, as there can be no further occasion to either continue with the disciplinary proceeding or to contemplate the disciplinary proceeding and therefore, the condition precedent to invoking the Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969 would no longer exist on the death of the Government employee.
5. From such point of view, it cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner was not in a pensionable service so as to disentitle the petitioner to family pension. Accordingly, the respondents in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department are directed to process the family pension of the petitioner and complete the same and bring it to its logical end within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. Writ Petition stands disposed of as indicated above.
The family pension is governed by Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 which inter-alia, provides that if a Government employee dies in service after having rendered more than one yea....
Point of Law : Rule 233 provides that the State Government in the Finance Department shall reserve to themselves the right of changing the rules and interpreting their meaning in respect of any doubt....
Point of Law : Entitlement of family pension to a mother would either be from the date of filing of the application or from the date of coming into force of the amendment, whichever is later.
Point of Law : A conjoint reading of the Amendment Rules of 2015 and the Amendment Rules of 2018 would go to show that the entitlement of family pension to a mother would either be from the date of f....
Point of Law : Provision of Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rule 1969, which inter alia provides that in case of death while in service, the government servant should have completed one year....
The denial of family pension based on unreasonable deductions of service years violates legal principles of fairness; unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to pension as per amended Rule 143.
In the absence of credible evidence of remarriage, a legally married spouse is entitled to family pension and benefits under the Assam Services Pension Rules.
The main legal point established is that the petitioner is entitled to full family pension with all benefits as per Rule 49 of the Pension Rules, based on the interpretation of qualifying service for....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.