IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
SULTANA REJIYA W/O LATE ABDUL GANI – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 486 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Borah, learned standing counsel, Agriculture Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, & 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned standing counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam; appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Mr. K.R. Patigiri, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7.
2. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, has raised a grievance with regard to the communication, dated 23.11.2022, issued by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, to the extent that the husband of the petitioner having not declared the date of marriage with the petitioner, herein, while submitting his pension papers, it was not possible on the part of the Office to establish and share the family pension at this stage until and unless the provisions of Rule 143(ii) of the Assam Service(Pension) Rules, 1969, was relaxed.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, is the 1st wife of Late Abdul Goni. The husband of the petitioner had retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The husband of the petitioner, at the time of his retirement, was serving as an Agriculture Inspector in the establishment of District Agricultural Officer, Dhubri, Assam. The pension and pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner was finalized and the Office of the respondent No. 5 had issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO) in this respect to the husband of the petitioner and he was drawing his pension basing thereon. The husband of the petitioner had passed away on 23.02.2018. It is also to be noted that the husband of the petitioner had also married the respondent No. 7, herein. The husband of the petitioner before his death, had executed a deed of agreement-cum-memorandum of understanding by and between himself and his 2(two) wives i.e. petitioner and the respondent No. 7, herein, on 06.02.2018. In the said deed of agreement, it was stipulated that the family pension be disbursed in the name of the 2nd party (petitioner, herein) along with the 3rd party (respondent No. 7, herein), in equal proportion.
4. It is seen that the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, by enclosing the said deed of agreement-cum-memorandum of understanding on 06.02.2018, had submitted a joint application before the District Agricultural Officer, Dhubri, praying for releasing the family pension which was, in the meanwhile, after the death of the husband of the petitioner, kept in abeyance.
5. The District Agricultural Officer, Dhubri, had, thereafter, vide communication, dated 05.01.2022, forwarded the joint application as submitted in the matter on 22.12.2021, by the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, herein, to the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, for necessary action and for an early settlement of the family pension. It is, in response to the said communication, dated 05.01.2022, that the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, had issued the impugned communication, dated 23.11.2022, with the following stipulations:
The eldest surviving widow is entitled to family pension as a trustee for all entitled parties, ensuring equitable distribution per the agreement between the wives.
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 amendment to the Assam Services (Pension) Rules permits unmarried dependent daughters to receive family pension beyond 21 years of age.
In the absence of any special Rules to the contrary, the nominations referred to under Rule 143 of the Assam (Services) Pension Rules, 1969 will be applicable.
Point of Law : In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid.
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.