Gauhati High Court
Smti. Riju Moni Saikia Das vs The Guwahati Municipal Corporation And ... on 13 June, 2025
Author: Soumitra Saikia
Bench: Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010043072024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1201/2024
SMTI. RIJU MONI SAIKIA DAS
W/O LATE JITEN DAS, R/O KHARGHULI, UPPER LUITPAR L.P. SCHOOL,
HOUSE NO. 21, P.O.-KHARGULI, P.S.-LATASIL, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP
(M), ASSAM, PIN-781004
VERSUS
THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 3 ORS
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005
2:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
PENSION CELL
GUWAHATI-781001
3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
GUWAHATI-781001
4:THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT OFFICER
THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
GANESH MANDIR
GUWAHATI-781006
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
ASSAM
DISPUR
GHY-078100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KANUNGOE, MS. J CHETTRY
Page No.# 2/6
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
13.06.2025
Ms. S Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mr. S Bora,
learned Standing Counsel, GMC Department.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for release of family pension to the
petitioner on account of the death of her late husband Late Jiten Das who served
as a Supervisor in the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"GMC').
3. The petitioner's late husband was serving as a Supervisor in the GMC and on
06.01.2018, the petitioner's husband was expired leaving behind the petitioner and
his family. The petitioner's marriage took place with her husband which was
solemnized socially in the year 2014.
4. It is submitted that the first wife expired before the marriage of the writ
petitioner with her late husband was solemnized. Out of the wedlock, a son was
born on 18.01.2015. The petitioner applied and was issued the Next of kin
certificate wherein the names of the petitioner and her minor son is reflected. The
counsel has also referred to the birth certificate issued by the Health Department
to submit that the son of the petitioner was born on 18.01.2015 and the name of
the father and the mother are also reflected. The petitioner had approached the
authorities concerned demanding the pension and other benefits of late Jiten Das
which the respondents had rejected by examining the records available with them.
According to the department, the late husband of the petitioner was married to
one Malati Das who also expired on 20.07.2016 and as such the marriage of the
Page No.# 3/6
petitioner with her late husband took place during the life of the first wife namely
Malati Das. Under such circumstances, the claims for the petitioner has been
disputed by referring to the provisions of law.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner being
the second wife is not entitled to be considered for family pension in terms of
Regulation 57 of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Employeees (Pension)
Regulation, 2015. In Rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
if the petitioner is not entitled then minor son of the petitioner born out of the
wedlock of the petitioner and the late husband is entitled to get the pension and
the son is around 09 years old. In support of her contentions, she has referred to
various Judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court rendered in Rameshwari
Devi Vs State of Bihar and Ors, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431; Nand Sinha and Ors.
Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in 2012 0 Supreme (Gau) 1011; Taru Boro Vs.
Union of India, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (Gau) 478 and Nikita Sutar Minor Vs.
State of Assam and Ors, reported in 2020 0 Supreme (Gau) 693.
6. Pressing the Judgments into service, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that minor sons and daughters born out of marriages which are
void and/or voidable at the instances of the parties will be entitled to a share of
pension. It is submitted that following the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in
Rameshwari Devi (Supra), this Court had passed several judgments and orders to
lay down the law that sons and daughters born out of marriages void or voidable
are also entitled to pension.
7. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on
record are carefully perused. The Judgments cited at the bar have also been
carefully perused.
8. It is seen that petitioner claims to be the wife of late Jiten Das and out of
Page No.# 4/6
their wedlock a minor son was born. The respondents have contested the claims of
the petitioner by filing necessary affidavit. The respondents however do not dispute
that the claim of the petitioner that the minor son of the petitioner is born out of
the wedlock of the petitioner and the late Jiten Das is not disputed.
9 Clause 57 of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Employees (Pension)
Regulation 2015 regulates the pension of the GMC Employees. The said Regulation
is extracted below:
''57. (i) Family will include the following relatives of the employer:
(a) Wife, in the case of a male employee;
(b) husband, in the case of a female employee;
(c) minor sons; and
(d) unmarried minor daughters.
(ii) The pension will be admissible-
(a) In the case of a widow/widower upto the date of
her/his death or re-marriage whichever is earlier.
(b) In the case of a minor son, until he attains the age of
18 years.
(c) In the case of an unmarried daughter until she attains
the age of 21 years or marriage, whichever is earlier.
(iii) Pension awarded under the rules in this section will not be payable to
more than one member of an employee's family at the same time. It will
first be admissible to the widow/widower, and thereafter, to the minor
children.
(iv) In the event of re-marriage or death of the widow/widower, the
pension will be granted to the minor children through their natural
guardian. In disputed cases, however, payments will be made through a
legal guardian.''
10. It is seen that the family pension benefit will be entitled to the legal heirs of
Page No.# 5/6
Late Jiten Das. From the materials available before the Court, it is seen that at
present there are three legal heirs namely the petitioner, her minor son and one
son born out of the wedlock of Jiten Das and his first wife late Malati Das. There is
no dispute at the bar that the said son is an adult and therefore not entitled to get
family pension. The petitioner claims to be the second wife but the claims of the
petitioner that she is entitled to family pension will have to be examined from the
stand point of Regulation 57. The said Regulation 57 includes amongst others wife,
in case of a male employees and minor sons. Whether the second wife or the sole
surviving wife will be included within the definition of wife under Rule 57(i) is a
question which will require examination. However, the petitioner after arguments at
some length submitted that it is only the minor son's share of pension that she is
now claiming as a guardian and not her share. As the petitioner is not claiming her
share of pension, the question whether the petitioner as the second and the sole
surviving wife; whether could be included in the term 'wife' as defined under Rule
57(i)(a) is left open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings.
11. Coming to the submissions made before this Court regarding the claim of the
minor son, as discussed that the respondents have not disputed the claims of
petitioner that the minor son is born out the marriage of the petitioner and her late
husband Jiten Das. The birth certificate enclosed to the writ petition is also not
disputed by the respondents. The law laid down by the apex Court which is
followed by the Judgments rendered by this Court clearly lays down the law that
sons born out of the second marriage will also be covered by the term 'minor son'
and will be entitled to share of pension.
12. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition therefore stands disposed
of permitting the petitioner to furnish all necessary documents before the
respondent authorities. The respondent authorities will examine the particulars and
if found to be correct will release the appropriate share of pension to the minor son
Page No.# 6/6
in a bank account opened in the name of the minor son and such family pension
will be available to the minor son till he reaches the age of 18 years.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
