GAHC010241572025 2025:GAU-AS:17236

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/7077/2025

DIPSHIKHA BISWAS

D/O- LATE MATILAL DAS,

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NEAR OVER BRIDGE, STATION ROAD, TARAPUR,

SILCHAR, PO AND PS SILCHAR, DISTRICT CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788003

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT

OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,

GUWAHATI 6

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

WATER

GOVT OF ASSAM

HENGRABARI GUWAHATI 36

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHE

SILCHAR DIVISION NO 1

SILCHAR

DISTRICT CACHAR

PIN 788006

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A AND G

MAIDAMGAON

BELTOLA

GUWAHATI 29

5:THE DIRECTOR GOVT OF ASSAM

PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT

GOVT OF ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P H E, SC, AG (A AND E),GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

12.12.2025 Date :

1. Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3, Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5, Mr. C. Baruah, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General, Finance Department appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who claims to be the daughter of Late. Smt. Debika Das, who was employed as a Tracer in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division No.I, Silchar, Cachar. The mother of the petitioner expired on 05.04.2025, leaving behind the petitioner as the sole dependent. The petitioner although was married, subsequently her marriage ended in a divorce and she was residing with her mother, who was the sole bread earner for the family including the writ petitioner.

3. Pursuant to the superannuation of the mother of the writ petitioner she was being paid pension on account of her retirement from service. The petitioner approach the Authorities for grant of family pension, which by submitting all necessary documents, however the respondents have treated her to be married and therefore declined to grant family pension. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Judgment of this Court rendered in WP(C) No.-8395/2019, whereby the co-ordinate Bench by Judgment dated 30.11.2021 had disposed of a similar writ petition recognizing the rights of a divorced daughter. The co-ordinate Bench had held that a divorced daughter is also entitled to the pension subject to the Authorities being satisfied on the dependency factor.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for similar directions to the respondents. The learned counsels for the respondents do not dispute this position in law.

6. Learned counsel at the bar submits that there is no writ appeal against this order and accordingly the Judgment has attained its finality.

7. Having perused the pleadings available on record as well as the Judgment, which has been pressed into service, it is seen that the Judgment has elaborately discussed the entitlement with regard to the grant of family pension in respect of a divorced daughter.

8. This Court, a co-ordinate Bench upon considering the matter in its entirety held as under:

i. This Court is of the view that since the intention of the Legislature is to support a dependent daughter who is unmarried and the emphasis is on the dependency of such daughter upon the deceased Government Servant, the same benefit may be extended to a divorced dependent daughter. This Court is of the view that there will not be a major difference between an unmarried or a divorced daughter as the pivotal ground is the ground of dependency. This C