B E F O R E

–

–

We have heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mr. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam; Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, and Mr. Ditul Das, learned Advocate for respondent No. 9.

The challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment dated 30.09.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 5963/2022, whereby the claim of the appellant, as the second widow, to receive pension on the death of the employee, has been rejected.

The appellant claims herself to be the second wife of the deceased government school teacher, who had approached the learned Single Judge claiming 50% of the family pension of her late husband, along with arrears and other benefits, under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as “Pension Rules”).

The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was on the strength of the nomination in her favour in the service records of the employee, despite her being the second wife. The appellant, who got married to the employee in the year 2012, gave birth to two children, who are still minor. The first wife of the employee, it is claimed, has an independent income source, namely, her pension as an Anganwadi worker. The first widow has six children, one of whom is employed as a teacher.

Mr. Abedin, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that there is extensive evidence of the marriage of the appellant with the deceased employee being legitimate. The other evidences, on which the claim is raised, are the documents relating to their conjugal life; birth certificates of her children; the entries in the Service Book of the employee apart from the Employee Data Capture Form under various schemes; her inclusion in the NRC; a passport and, most importantly, a pre-death affidavit by the husband declaring equal pension shares for both the wives.

It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that post the death of the employee, the first wife evicted the appellant form the matrimonial home, forcing her to live with her parents under great financial hardship.

The learned Single Judge, relying on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mustt. Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt. Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi and others (WA 160/2018), has held that under the Pension Rules of 1969, the only person entitled to receive family pension would be the first widow, regardless of the nomination of the appellant and the pre-death affidavit of the late employee.

The contention of the appellant is that though the relevant paragraphs of the Full Bench judgment have been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, but a succeeding paragraph (Paragraph 23) was left out, which would have given the right to the appellant to pursue her claim for 50% of the family pension amount.

For the sake of completeness, we deem it appropriate to extract below the paragraph Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 (which paragraph has not been extracted in the impugned judgment):

“19. A conjoint reading of Note 1 to Rule 143 (ii) and Rule 143 (iii) of the Pension Rules of 1969 makes it explicit and unambiguous that the family pension would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widow in the event of there being two or more widows and further that even if there are minor children who may also be entitled to the benefits of the family pension, the pension would be paid to only one member of the family at the same time, where at first instance it would be paid to the eldest of the surviving widow and thereafter, on her death to the next surviving widow, if any and in its absence to the minor children.

20. As a corollary to the provisions of the Rule 143 (iii) of the Pension Rules of 1969, Note 1 to Rule 143 (ii) would have to be read to mean that the family pension would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widows in the event there are two or more widows, and thereafter, on h