Ginati Deori vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors. Represented ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1670 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Ginati Deori vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors. Represented ... on 1 August, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010058052025




                                                              undefined

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

                            Case No. : WA/244/2025

         GINATI DEORI
         W/O- LATE UJJAL DEORI, R/O- VILL- GAIDEORI JK CHARIALI NO. 1,
         SIRIPANI DEORI, SISSIBARGAON, PO JANAKALYAN CHARIALI, DISTRICT-
         DHEMAJI, ASSAM, PIN-787110.

                       VERSUS

         1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY
         DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY- 06

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-
         06.

         3:THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY
         DEPARTMENT M.G. ROAD CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781003.

         4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI
         P/O. AND DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060

         5:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY OFFICER
         LAKHIMPUR DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001.

         6:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE INTENSIVE CATTLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
         LAKHIMPUR DIST. NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787032

         7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SISSIRBARGAON DHEMAJI
         P/O. SISSIRBARGAON DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787110.

         8:QUEEN DEORI
         D/O. LT. UJJAL DEORI R/O. RONGKUP TINIALI
         P/O. AND P/S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787060
                                                                                Page No.# 2/3

For the Appellant(s)    : Mr. P.R. Sarma, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)   : Mrs. M.M. Kataky, Standing Counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary

Department for respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6.

: Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Advocate for respondent No.8.

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

01.08.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. P.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant; Mrs. M.M. Kataky, learned Standing Counsel, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, for respondent Nos.1, 3, 5 & 6 and Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.8/writ petitioner.

The learned Single Judge, vide his judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1425/2024, has directed that both the appellant and the respondent No.8/writ petitioner would receive family pension, in view of the amendment made in Section 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as "1969 Rules").

The daughter, born out of the wedlock of the second wife of the deceased Government employee, approached this Court by filing the afore- noted writ petition seeking family pension, which was allowed.

The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the deceased Government employee was married to the appellant with whom a son was born, who is now a major. The daughter born out of the second wife of the deceased employee is still unmarried and prosecuting her studies.

The learned Single Judge, after going through the pleadings and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, found that the dispute between the widow and the unmarried daughter of the late Government employee could be Page No.# 3/3

resolved by directing for dividing the family pension into two halves, i.e. in equal proportion. This was only in keeping with the requirement under the 1969 Rules.

It was, therefore, directed by the learned Single Judge that the State respondents ought to process the claim of the wife and the daughter of the deceased employee in the light of the amended provisions of Rule 143 of the 1969 Rules and forward the pension papers to the Office of the Accountant General, Assam, as expeditiously as possible but not later than 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Along with the proposal, another proposal of the proportionate disbursement of arrears of family pension was also required to be sent.

There is nothing in this judgment, which requires any interference. All that we can observe is that the State respondents ought not to delay in computing the family pension and making it available on a regular basis to both the appellant and the respondent No.8/writ petitioner.

With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal stands disposed off.

                  JUDGE                            CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant