##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010131362022

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/4620/2022

SONI ALI

REPRESENTED BY SARIFUL ISLAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF

LATE RAHIM ALI AHMED, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHANDAKARPARA,

P.S. BARPETA, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781309.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E)

ASSAM

MAIDAMGAON

BELTOLA

GUWAHATI-29.

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

S.B.(E)

ASSAM

KAHILIPARA

GUWAHATI-19.

4:THE TREASURY OFFICER

BAJALI

DISTRICT- BARPETA

ASSAM

PIN- 781325.

5:MUKUTA BEGUM

DAUGHTER OF UNKNOWN

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHANDAKARPARA

P.S.- BARPETA

DISTRICT- BARPETA

ASSAM

PIN- 781309

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B U LASKAR,

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR S MUKTAR (r-5),SC, FINANCE,SC, AG

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

20.05.2026

Date :

Heard Mr. B.U. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. K.

Goswami, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Also heard Mr. C.

Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. S. Muktar, learned

counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. By earlier order dated 28.08.2025, this Court has referred the matter for

mediation. However, it is reflected by report dated 23.10.2025 that the learned

Mediator has submitted that the mediation has failed.

3. The matter is taken up today for consideration and after some arguments,

the learned counsel for the Home Department, Govt. of Assam, who also

represents the respondent No. 3, has submitted that a perusal of the records,

which led to the release of the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the

respondent No. 5 despite the existence of the other family members, would be

necessary for a proper adjudication in the matter.

4. Rule 135 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 provides that the

DCRG is required to be paid to the eligible family members in equal shares.

5. The prayers made in the writ petition are for release of the family pension

in favour of the deceased who claims to be person with benchmark disability

and son of the deceased Government servant along with the DCRG of the

deceased employee.

6. The affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 reflects

Page No.# 3/3

that the leave salary amounting to Rs. 4,30,549/- provisional DCRG amounting

to Rs. 7,78,536/-, G.I.S. saving amount of Rs. 66,812/- and G.I.S. amounting to

Rs. 2,00,000/ have been paid to the respondent No. 5 in the matter.

7. The affidavit does not reflect if there is any other amount pending with the

Government to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Government servant.

8. List this matter again on 25.05.2026 on which date the learned counsel

representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall produce before this Court the

records on the basis of which the DCRG and other amount have been released

to the respondent No. 5 despite the provisions of the Rule 135 (2)(i) of the

Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 shall also be at liberty to

inform this court if the respondent No. 5 is willing to undergo another round of

mediation in the matter.

10. In the meantime, it is provided that if any further amount is pending to be

paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Government employee, no such payment

shall be made solely to the respondent No. 5, without leave of this Court.

11. List the matter accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant