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.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, AG, for the respondent No. 1; Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.

2; Ms. A. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Mr. R. M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to finalize the payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner and to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner’s father, taking into account the total length of service without any deduction, in terms of the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

3. The father of the petitioner, namely, Late Bonti Das, was working as Muster Roll worker under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat Road Division, since 01.06.1981 till his retirement on 31.05.2001. The service of the petitioner’s late father was regularized vide order dated 30.11.2005. After his retirement, an office order was issued for payment of leave salary/gratuity as admissible. The mother of the petitioner had died on 11.01.2005 and her father died on 01.11.2012, leaving behind 2 (two) sons and the petitioner.

4. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner submitted the pension papers to the concerned authority. At the time of submission of the pension papers, the petitioner was aged about 17 years. Therefore, being ignorant of the family pension entitlement and being an unmarried minor daughter, no proposal was submitted for payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner. After scrutiny of the pension papers, the respondent authorities, vide letter dated 27.10.2016, sanctioned the terminal gratuity amounting to Rs. 24,528/- (Rupees twenty-four thousand five hundred twenty-eight) only, which was accordingly released in favour of the brother of the petitioner.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that her father had joined his service on 01.06.1981 and retired from service on 31.05.2001 after rendering more than 20 (twenty) years of service. Therefore, the pensionary benefits ought to have been granted without deducting the initial 6 (six) years of Muster Roll service period. The petitioner, being an unmarried and dependent daughter, is entitled to receive family pension in terms of the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Despite submission of all necessary documents, including the unmarried and unemployment certificates, along with representations before the concerned authorities claiming family pension, the respondent authorities have failed to release the same in favour of the petitioner.

6. It is contended that in terms of the relevant Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be provided with family pension, as the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, clearly provides that an unmarried dependent daughter is entitled to receive family pension. It is further contended that, in view of the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805, the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits accrued to her late father, inasmuch as the terminal gratuity was sanctioned after deducting 6 (six) years of initial service rendered as Muster Roll worker, whereas this Hon’ble Court has clearly held that no such deduction of 6 (six) years can be made.

7. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Ro