Gauhati High Court
Fulti Pator vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 25 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010076372019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2382/2019
FULTI PATOR
W/O- LT JATINDRA NATH PATOR, R/O- SATABOR GAON, P.O. ALIKUCHI, P.S.
MORIGAON, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE
DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
3:THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GHY-37
4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KAPILI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
BARPUJIA
RAHA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
782001
5:BRAJYA SHYAM GOHAIN (RETD.)
ACCOUNTANT CUM STORE KEEPER
KAPILI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
R/O- RAJA GAON
BARAPUJIA
Page No.# 2/5
RAHA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
782001
6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GHY-29
7:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GHY-2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNRD
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
25.01.2021
Heard Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.
Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, Mr. C. Baruah,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 7 as well as Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 1. No one appears for the respondent No. 5,
though affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner's case is that petitioner's husband was appointed as a
Gram Sevak in Jugijan Devlopment Block, Hojai, Nagaon, in the year 1968. The
Directorate of Agriculture, Assam deputed the petitioner's husband to undergo
higher training programme at Jorhat on 17.07.1968. Thereafter, he was attached
with the office of the BDO, Kapili Development Block, Barpujia, Raha, District-
Page No.# 3/5
Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner died in harness on 22.04.1992. 3. The
Petitioner applied for family pension and other retirement benefits in the year 1996
and all the original relevant documents were submitted to the respondent No. 5,
who was in-charge of pension work and who was also the senior accountant in the
Kapili development block. As the State respondents failed to grant the family
pension to the petitioner, the petitioner visited the office of the Directorate of
Pension and Public Grievance, Guwahati in the year 2016, where she came to
know that officials of the Kapili Development Block had never submitted her
pension papers to the Directorate.
4. The petitioner's counsel submits that a hearing had been held in the
office chamber of the BDO, Kapili Development Block on 27.03.2013, in the
presence of certain officials and the petitioner's advocate, wherein the respondent
No. 5 had admitted that the petitioner had submitted the pension papers to him.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is entitled to
payment of family pension, a direction to that effect should be issued to the
respondents.
5. Mr. M. Nath, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submits
that as per office order dated 29.07.1968, issued by the BDO, Jugijan Development
Block, as well as the letter dated 13.09.1968 annexed to the writ petition, it is not
clear whether the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a regular Gram
Sevak, as the said document dated 29.07.1968 reveals that the petitioner's
husband had been released from his duty on 29.07.1968 to enable him to join the
training centre at Jorhat. Further, no documents/applications pertaining to a claim
for family pension or other pensionary benefits are available in the records of the
office. Also, there is no service record of the petitioner's husband available in the
office of the Kapili Development Block, except the cash book pertaining to the
period from April, 1975 to February, 1976. He submits that there is no appointment
letter of the petitioner's husband available in the office and as per the cash book
available in the office, the petitioner had rendered service from May, 1975 to
February, 1976 only i.e. for a period of only 10(ten) months and payments were
Page No.# 4/5
made to the petitioner's husband for the said period.
6. Mr. M. Nath, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 also
submits that the question of whether a hearing had taken place in the office of the
BDO, Kapili, Development Block on 27.03.2017 and the discussions allegedly made
therein regarding the family pension claim made by the petitioner, was something
beyond the knowledge of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
7. The affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 is to the effect that he is not
sure whether the pension papers had been properly submitted by the petitioner to
him or not. However, the respondent No. 5's affidavit states that the petitioner's
husband was working as a Gram Sevak till his death on 22.04.1992.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. There is no appointment order of the petitioner or any document to show
that he was a regular employee. The submissions made by the counsels and the
pleadings show that there are disputed questions of fact, which will have to be
ascertained before a decision on the issue can be made.
10. Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated above, the Director of
Panchayat & Rural Development is directed to cause an enquiry, to ascertain
whether the petitioner's husband was appointed as Gram Sevak on a regular basis
and whether the petitioner died in harness on 22.04.1992.
11. The Director shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to
coming to a finding and taking a decision on the above issues. If the Director
comes to a decision that the petitioner was a regular employee, necessary steps
should be taken by the respondents for payment of family pension to the
petitioner. However, the family pension payable, if any, should be paid in terms of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India -vs- Tarsem Singh,
reported in 2008 8 SCC, 648.
12. The entire exercise should be concluded by the Director of Panchayat and
Rural Development and other respondents, within a period of 4(four) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page No.# 5/5
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
