Smti Geeta Barman vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1529 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Smti Geeta Barman vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 28 July, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010028022025




                                                              undefined

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

                            Case No. : WA/156/2025

         SMTI GEETA BARMAN
         WIFE OF LATE SUTKU BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PADMABIL P.O-
         GOSSAIGAON P.S-GOSSAIGAON DIST-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. PIN- 783361.

                   VERSUS

         1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASSAM
         SACHIBALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

         2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
         ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

         3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD CHANDMARI
          GUWAHATI-3.

         4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
          KOKRAJHAR RURAL ROADS DIVISION
          P.O. KOKRAJHAR PIN - 783361 DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

         5:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOSSAIGAON ROADS SUB-DIVISION
          P.O. GOSSAIGAON PIN- 783361 DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

         6:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
         ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006.

         7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A AND E
          MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 ASSA M
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4



For the Appellant(s)        : Mr. K. Das, Advocate.
                            : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.
                            : Mr. H. Gogoi, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s)       : Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

: Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General, Assam. : Mr. R. Boro, Advocate for respondent No.7.

- BEFORE -

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

28.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. K. Das, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State.

In the present appeal, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.08.2024 in WP(C) No.1177/2017 has been questioned.

The appellant is the wife and widow of Late Sutku Barman, who worked as a Work-Charge Chowkidar against a sanctioned vacant post. For such service, he was paid regular salary and was extended all benefits of Grade-IV regular employee including GPF. His services were duly recorded and his Service Roll was also maintained throughout his tenure.

However, unfortunately, despite a drive by the State Government under a Scheme dated 30.09.2005, the services of many, working on the Muster Roll and Work-Charge employees were regularized. In fact, the number of such persons who were the beneficiaries of such Scheme was approximately around 8,000.

Page No.# 3/4

Possibly on account of over-sight, the name of the late husband of the appellant was not included in the list of such beneficiaries for regularization.

The employee later died in harness.

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (respondent No.4), realising the mistake, wrote to the Government for posthumous regularization of the services of the employee only for the purposes of securing Family Pension to the appellant herein whose husband had served for around 30 years continuously.

The learned Single Judge, on finding that the family pension scheme is under a statute, which operates under some interdicts, did not allow the prayer of the widow.

Prima-facie, the reasoning employed by the learned Single Judge appears to be unassailable but, in a case of this kind, in order to mitigate excessive hardship, we deem it appropriate to give a detailed hearing in the matter to find out as to under such circumstances, where there is no doubt that an employee would have been regularized but for the mistake of the Government, whether there should be such strict reading of the Scheme in order to avoid making payment of Family Pension to the widow of the deceased employee.

Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, however, submits that it is for the first time that an averment has been made in the appeal that the deceased employee was working against a sanctioned vacant post.

He wishes to file his response to the appeal.

Let him to do so on or before the next date, with a copy of the affidavit served in advance to the learned counsel for the appellant to rejoin, if deemed Page No.# 4/4

necessary.

Re-notify on 20.08.2025.

                      JUDGE      CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant