Musstt. Halima Khatun vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 5466 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Musstt. Halima Khatun vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 2 August, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010153372023




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/4016/2023

         MUSSTT. HALIMA KHATUN
         W/O LATE AKTER ZAMAN, R/O VILL- LAOGAON, P.O.-SALMARI, P.S.-
         RUPAHIHAT, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782002



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
         ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER
          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
         ASSAM
          JURIPAR
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI-781037

         3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          NAGAON ZILA PARISHAD
          DIST-NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-782001

         4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
         ASSAM
          MAIDAMGAON
          BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM
          781029
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4

            5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
             BAJIA GAON DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
             P.O.-KAWAIMARI
             DIST- NAGAON
            ASSAM
             PIN-782140

            6:MUSSTT. UMME KULSUM
            W/O LATE AKTER ZAMAN
             R/O PUB-SINGIMARI
             P.O.-SINGIMARI
             P.S.-RUPAHIHAT
             DIST- NAGAON
            ASSAM
             PIN-78212

Advocate for the Petitioner   : M ALAMGEER,

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, AG




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                         ORDER

02.08.2024 Heard Shri AI Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Shri B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Assam.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who is the second wife, has approached this Court with a claim for the DCRG and the family pension. It is submitted by Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was serving as a Driver in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Bajia Gaon Development Block in the district of Nagaon. While the petitioner was in service, he had passed away on 28.07.2023. It however transpires that the petitioner is the second wife and the respondent no. 6 is the first wife and accordingly they had entered into an agreement for sharing the family pension and DCRG.

Page No.# 3/4

3. Though the aforesaid proposal was forwarded, the same was returned.

4. The learned counsel for the parties have however placed before this Court a judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.A./160/2018 [Mustt. Junufa Bibi Vs. Mustt. Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi]. In the said case, it has been laid down that the second or further wives of the deceased Government servant for whom such marriage was permissible under the Personal Law would approach for appropriate orders for maintenance. For ready reference, the relevant observations made in the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:

"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."

5. The learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that in terms of the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition can be disposed of.

Page No.# 4/4

6. In view of the above and in terms of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench, more particularly, the observations made in paragraph 23 quoted above, the writ petition is disposed of. The directions of the Hon'ble Full Bench would also be applicable and followed in the present case.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant