GAHC010215202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/6107/2025 SMTI DYUTI PROVA PAUL GHOSH WIFE OF LATE DIPTHINKAR GHOSH, DAUGHTER OF LATE RASENDRA KUMAR PAUL, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 21, BLOCK-C F-1, KANAK LATA PATH, RUKMINIGAON, P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.

VERSUS

1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER-CUM-COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, E-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6.

2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD GUWAHATI- 1.

3:THE ACCOUNT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 29.

4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6.

5:THE DIRECTOR PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Chakravorty, Advocate.

: Mr. P. Sarmah, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Baruah, Junior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 & 5.

: Mr. G. Baishya, Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent Nos.2.

: Ms. Tinlung, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. talukdar, Standing Counsel, Accountant General for respondent No.3.

B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

31.03.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 & 5 and Mr. G. Baishya, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent Nos.2.

The petitioner is the widowed daughter of a Judicial Officer, who had died in harness. The mother of the petitioner has been getting monthly family pension but, as on date, she is bedridden because of age related ailments. The petitioner wants to be included in the list of the “dependant daughter” but that was refused on account of the definition of “Family” provided in Section 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1969”), which for the purpose of pension, includes wife - in case of a male officer; husband - in case of a female officer; minor sons and unmarried dependent daughters.

The respondents raised objection that the petitioner could be dependent because of her being widowed but the expression “family” for the purposes of pension would include only “unmarried dependent”

daughters.

The petitioner thus seeks an intervention of the Court, not perhaps by way of an amendment in the Rules so far as the Dictionary of the Act is concerned with respect to “family”, but argues for reading the provision of Rule 143 of the Rules of 1969 liberally so as to include even a widowed dependant daughter as part of the “family” to entitle her for family pension.

The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that prior to the amendment of the Rules in 2018, in the category of “family”, only unmarried minor daughters were included. However, post the amendment, it was changed to unmarried dependant daughters. In the same spirit, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that this Court also should harmoniously interpret the afore-noted provisions of the Rules of 1969 so as to include even widowed daughters, who are dependent because, not doing so would, in a large measure, defeat the objectives of a liberalized pension scheme meant for supporting the vulnerable family members. In many of the other Rules of the other Departments, a framework has been set up where the family would include unmarried and widowed daughters also for gratuity nominations. The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 and the Scheme for Railway servants also provide for including a widowed daughter having her entitlement to claim pension.

The definition of “unmarried daughter” as provided in Black’s Law Dictionary is : female, who has never married. However, it has been explained that it is a word of fl