Ratna Begum Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 930 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010035942023




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1146/2023

         RATNA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
         W/O-LT. SIRAJUDDIN BARBHUIYA, R/O- VILL- BOWERGHAT PART-I, P.O.
         BOWERGHAT PART-I, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788164



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ANIMAL
         HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM,
         PIN- 781006

         2:THE JOINT SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781006

         3:THE SENIOR ACCOUNT OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM
          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI- 781029

         4:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT.
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781006
                                                                         Page No.# 2/4

            5:THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
             (PIG
             SHEEP AND GOAT) GOVT. OF ASSAM
            ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT.
             CHANDMARI
             GUWAHATI
            ASSAM
             PIN- 781003

            6:PURNIMA RAHMAN BARBHUIYA
            W/O- LT. SIRAJUDDIN BARBHUIYA
             R/O- VILL- BOWERGHAT PART-I
             P.O. BOWERGHAT PART-I
             DIST.- HAILAKANDI
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78816

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MD I H LASKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

10.03.2023

Heard Mr. I. H. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. M. Kotoky, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5. Also heard Ms. J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 as well as Ms. S. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is the second wife of Late Sirajuddin Barbhuiya. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 is the first wife of Late Sirajuddin Barbhuiya and she has been receiving the family pension. However, the respondent No.6 has not Page No.# 3/4

maintained her for which the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Mustt. Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt. Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi and Others , reported in 2022

SCCOnLine Gau 2000, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ

petition for which the petitioner has to approach the appropriate forum under law.

This Court has duly taken note of paragraph No.23 of the said judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Mustt. Junufa Bibi (supra) which is reproduced herein below:-

"23. We also provide that in the event any such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969, including the second or further wives, in a case where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law, are not appropriately maintained by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife to whom the pension would be paid, the remedy thereof would be to make a claim for maintenance in the appropriate forum under the law and not a claim for a payment of the family pension by the State authorities directly to such persons. But however, if in a given case the State authorities on their own volition are of the view that under an acceptable circumstance the authorities are agreeable or required to pay the pension separately to any such member of a family of a deceased employee, this judgment may not be construed to be an absolute bar on such separate payment."

Taking into account the submission to the effect that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the direction which is Page No.# 4/4

being sought for is per se a direction against the private respondent, this Court permits the petitioner to withdraw the instant writ petition. However liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under law for claiming maintenance in terms with paragraph No.23 of the judgment in the case of Mustt. Junufa Bibi (supra). The petitioner is also given the liberty to approach the State respondents to take into account that the petitioner has a claim for entitlement of a part of the family pension being the second wife and it shall be within the discretion of the State respondents to consider the said claim in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed on withdrawal subject to the observations made herein above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant