GAHC010148042025 2025:GAU-AS:14847

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/4201/2025

LAILIYA BEGUM

W/O- LATE SHARAFAT ALI, R/O- VILLAGE- BALITIKA,

P.S- LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787031

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY

EDUCATION DEPTT. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

GOVT OF ASSAM

KAHILIPARA

GUWAHATI-19

3:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION

ASSAM

HOUSEFED COMPLEX

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-6

4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)

MAIDAMGAON

GUWAHATI-28

ASSAM

5:THE TREASURY OFFICER

LAKHIMPUR

ASSAM

PIN-787031

6:BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NOWBOICHA NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787031

7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787031

8:KHAIRUN NESSA (IST WIFE ) OF LATE SHARAFAT ALI VILLAGE- BALITIKA P.S AND DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78703 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M RAHMAN, MR. A Y CHOUDHURY,MS. P K DEVI,MS M BEGUM,MR A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, I AMIN (R-8),R ALI (R-8),MR M H AHMED (R-

8),SC, ELEM. EDU,SC, AG (A AND E)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

Date : 03.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/second wife. Also heard Mr. I. Amin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8/first wife, Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Ms. S. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. The core issue involved in the writ petition is the non-

disbursement of the pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner, who is the second wife of the deceased Sharafat Ali, who expired on 26.02.2025 while he was working as headmaster of Azad L.P. School, Lakhimpur.

3. Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, reads as under: -

“143. (i) Family for the purpose of rules in this Section will include the following relatives of the officer – (a) wife, in the case of a male officer;

(b) husband, in the case of a female officer;

(c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried minor daughters.

Note 1. (c) and (d) will include children adopted legality before retirement.

Note 2. Marriage after retirement will not be recognized for purposes of rules in this Section.

(ii) The pension will be admissible –

(a) in the case of widow/widower up to the date of her/his death or re-marriage whichever is earlier.

(b) In the case of minor son, until he attains the age of 18 years.

(c) In the case of an unmarried daughter, until he attains the age of

21 years or marriage whichever is earlier.

Note. - In cases where there are two or more widows, pension will be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. The term 'eldest'

would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage.

(iii) Pension awarded under the rules in this Section will not be payable to more than one member of an officer's family at the same time. It will first be admissible to the widow/widower and thereafter to the minor children.

(iv) In the event of re-marriage or death of the widow/widower, the pension will be granted to the minor children through their natural guardian. In disputed cases, however, payments will be made through a legal guardian.

(v) The temporary increases granted on pension will not be admissible on the Family Pension granted under the Scheme in this Section.”

4. Reading the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that a spouse of a retired official is entitled for pensionary benefits. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sirazun Nessa v. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2011 (4) GLT 751, while considering as to whether the second wife of a Muslim employee is entitled to any share in the family pension of her late husband and after examining Rule 143 (1), has answered in the affirmative. In that case the Division Bench held that the Rule has not ruled out taking into consideration the valid marriage of two or more wives of a Muslim employee and directed that the second wife would