Papari Barman vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 104 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010018732022




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/714/2022

            PAPARI BARMAN
            W/O- LATE PRAFULLA BARMAN, R/O- NARUWA, VILL.- BALIJAN
            CHARIALI, P.S. AND P.O. MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR-06.

            2:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI-781029
            ASSAM

            3:DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMAN TRAINING
             GUWAHATI-08
             REHABARI
            ASSAM

            4:SUPERINTENDENT SKILL AND EMPLOYMENT AND ENTERPREUNOR
            DEPARTMENT
             INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE
             BARPETA-781301

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR MINTU SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3


                                BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                     ORDER

Date : 06.01.2023

The respondents take a stand that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on 22.01.2019 and he died on 03.07.2019 and as he had a service of about five months i.e. less than one year, therefore in terms of the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme the present petitioner is not entitled to any family pension.

2. We have noticed that the husband of the petitioner was a participant in a special recruitment drive for physically disabled persons pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.06.2005 in respect of 134 identified vacancies where some appointments were made, but the husband of the petitioner was not appointed.

3. Having accepted the illegality on the part of the department in not appointing the husband of the petitioner as per the requirement, there was direction by the Court in the judgment and order dated 23.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 1424/2011 to give appointment to the husband of the petitioner and the appointment dated 22.01.2019 was a result of such direction by the Court.

4. If the delay in appointment was because of an illegality by the department which had been judicially accepted in the judgment and order dated 23.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 1424/2011, we require the respondents to explain as to how they can take advantage of their earlier illegality in not appointing the husband of the petitioner in due and appropriate time to deny the pension that because of the aforesaid circumstance he has served for only about five months and not one year. The respondents to respond to the aforesaid query on the next date.

Page No.# 3/3

List after three weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant