Manju Borah v. The State of Assam and 5 Ors

ORDER

14.11.2023

¶1Heard Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department. Mr. S.R. Barua, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5.

¶2The petitioner's case is that she is the mother of Late Rupjyoti Borah, who had served as a Constable in the 2nd Assam Forest Protection Force Battalion. The petitioner's son passed away in a motor accident on 20.10.2021 while on duty. The petitioner's son left behind his wife, i.e. respondent no.4 and the petitioner. The petitioner's son did not have any children with the respondent no.4. Page No.# 3/5

¶3The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.4 has left the marital home and is not sharing the Family Pension received by her. Further, the respondent no.4 is working in the same department, where the petitioner's son had been working. She accordingly submits that the petitioner should be given a proportionate share of the Family Pension along with the respondent no.4.

¶4Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that in terms of Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1969 Rules"), a mother would have no right to a share of the Family Pension, as long as the respondent no.4 is still alive.

¶5I have heard the submissions made by the counsels for the petitioner and the respondent no.4.

¶6Rule 143(i) and the Amendment made thereto defines "Family" to include the following relatives of a Government servant : "(a) Wife, in the case of a male officer;

(b) husband, in the case of a female officer;

(c) minor sons ; and

(d) unmarried dependent daughters;

(e) Father;

(f) Mother;

(g) Eldest surviving brother upto the age of 18 years;

(h) Eldest surviving sister upto to age of 21 or marriage whichever is Page No.# 4/5 earlier"

¶7Rule 143(iii) provides that pension awarded under the rules will not be payable to more than one member of an officer's family at the same time. It would first be admissible to the widow/widower and thereafter to the minor children.

¶8Rule 143(iv) provides that 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.

¶9Rule 143(v) provides that the temporary increases granted on pension will not be admissible on the Family Pension granted under the Scheme in this section.

¶10Further the Amendment provides that Family Pension under Rule 143 shall be admissible apart from (a) to (c) in the existing provisions as follows : "(d) to the father;

(e) failing (d) to the mother;

(f) failing (d) & (e) to the eldest surviving brother upto 18 years of age;

(h) failing (d), (e) & (f) to the eldest surviving unmarried sister upto to the age of 21 or marriage whichever is earlier"

¶11A perusal of the above provisions clearly goes to show that Family Pension can be given to only one member of the family of a deceased Government Page No.# 5/5 servant at a time. The Family Pension would have to be given first to the widow/widower. Thereafter in the event of death of the widow/widower, the same shall have to be given to the minor sons and in the absence of the same, to the unmarried dependent daughters. In the absence of unmarried daughter, it would have to be given to the father, failing which, to the mother and so on. As such, Rule 143 of the 1969 Rules along with the Amendment make it clear that the mother, i.e. the petitioner does not have any right to claim a proportionate share of Family Pension along with the respondent no.4, i.e. the wife of the deceased Government servant. This is also in line with Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 137 of the 1969 Rules, which deals with the manner in which Family Pension is to be paid.

¶12In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010114322022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/3936/2022o MANJUoBORAHo W/O-oTANGKESWARoBORAH,o R/O-oMIKIRoHAAT,oPURANIGUDAM,o BYoRELIGIONoHINDU,o BYoPROFESSION-oHOMEoMAKER,o DIST-oNAGAON,o PIN-782141 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo5oORSo REPoBYoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARY,oOFoFORESToDEPARTMENTo,o PANJABARI,oGUWAHATI-781037 2:DFO oBOKAKHAT oGOLAGHAT o(KOHORAoRANGE) oPIN-785621 3:COMMANDANToOFo2NDoAFPF oJAKHALABANDHA oSIKONI o DIST-oNAGAON oPIN-782001 4:NEELAKSHIoSAIKIA oW/O-oLATEoRUPJYOTIoBORAH o R/O-o3RDoAPBN oJORHAToTITABAR Page No.# 2/5 DIST- JORHAT PIN-785001 5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY-6. 6:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY-781029 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA