Gauhati High Court
Rohima Begum vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 13 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010075882022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2787/2022
ROHIMA BEGUM
W/O LATE MOINUL HOQUE BORBHUIYA, VILL-BARBOND PT-II, P.S.-
HAILAKANDI, DIST-HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788151
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (BUILDING)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-03
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PWD SILCHAR (BUILDING DIVISION)
SILCHAR
4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI-29
5:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD
Page No.# 2/3
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
13.06.2022
Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.
Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3 and Mr. A. Hassan, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4.
The petitioner's case is that her deceased husband was initially engaged as a
Muster Roll worker in the establishment of the respondent No.5 on 17.10.1990. The
service of the petitioner's husband was regularized vide order dated 28.10.2005 as a
Grade-IV employee w.e.f 22.07.2005. However, the petitioner's husband died in
harness on 14.03.2006. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for
family pension in terms of Rule 142 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Rules'). However, the request of the petitioner for
payment of family pension has fallen on deaf ears.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the service period of the petitioner's
husband, prior to his regularization, would also have to be counted for the purpose of
grant of family pension, in terms of the 1969 Rules, as well as the Office Memorandum
No.PPG(P)88/2009/02 dated 20.05.2009 and the Office Memorandum No. PPG(P)
88/2009/44 dated 18.03.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Pension & Public Grievances Department, along with the decision of this Court
in the case of Sanjita Roy -vs- State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) GLT 895.
Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 submits that the
petitioner's case for payment of family pension can be considered in terms of Chapter-
VIII of the 1969 Rules.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
Admittedly, the petitioner's husband rendered service for less than one year
Page No.# 3/3
after regularization. However, keeping in view various Notifications issued by the
Government and the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), it is clear that the
entire service period of the petitioner's husband as Muster Roll worker would have to
be taken into consideration, while taking a decision as to whether the petitioner would
be entitled to family pension.
Chapter-VIII of the 1969 Rules clearly provides that family pension would be
payable to the family members of a deceased Government servant in terms of Rule
140, 141 and 142. As such, this Court is of the view that there cannot be denial of
payment of family pension to the petitioner. The State respondents are accordingly
directed to process the family pension papers of the petitioner, after proper
verification, with regard to the status of the petitioner and the petitioner's husband
and finalise the said papers if everything is in order, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
