Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 120 (GAU)

State of Assam v. Atasi Tarafdar (Dutta) & 4 Ors.

2016-02-22

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2016
1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Govt. of Assam appearing on behalf of the review petitioner. 2. Mr. S. Banik submits that the judgment and order dated 3.6.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 944/2015 should be reviewed in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in G. Vasudevan Pillai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 2 SCC 32 . 3. The order dated 3.6.2015 passed in WP(C) 944/2015 is to the following effect: “Petitioner's case is that on the death of her husband on 19.8.2012, she approached the respondent authorities for payment of family pension. The petitioner was given a PPO Number and given pension. However, the Treasury Officer deducted a sum of Rs. 1,67,271/- from the family pension on the ground that the petitioner being an employed person is not entitled to Dearness Relief and Medical Allowance in terms of the letter dated 5.9.89 and 30.7.2011 issued by the Govt. of Assam. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the authorities to release Dearness Relief and Medical Allowance along with family pension payable to the petitioner. The question of payment of Dearness Relief and Medical Allowance along with family pension has been settled by this Court in a number of decisions. Vide order dated 27.5.2013 passed in WP(C) 2534/2012, it has been held: “Mr. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of HSEB v. Azad Kaur reported in (2000) 2 SCC 227 has submitted that since the petitioner was employed prior to the death of her husband and has not been employed on compassionate ground, she cannot be denied the benefit of adhoc relief on pension. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that since the petitioner has been employed as Govt. employee in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilasipara, Dhubri, she is not entitled to the adhoc relief on pension. The question which requires determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to adhoc relief on pension she being a Govt. employee. The said issue has already been decided by the Apex Court in HSEB (supra) wherein it has been held that mere fact that the widow is independently employed elsewhere cannot deprive the family of the benefit of adhoc relief on family pension. employee. The said issue has already been decided by the Apex Court in HSEB (supra) wherein it has been held that mere fact that the widow is independently employed elsewhere cannot deprive the family of the benefit of adhoc relief on family pension. The petitioner has been employed even prior to her husband's death. That being the position the respondents are directed to pay the adhoc relief to the petitioner on the family pension. The same shall be done within a period of two months from today.” The said order dated 27.5.2013 passed in WP(C) 2534/2012 has also been followed in the order dated 24.3.2015 passed in WP(C) 3944/2014. I have heard the counsels for the parties and they have all submitted that the present case is covered by the above judgments. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the Dearness Relief and Medical Allowance to the petitioner with arrears from the date of death of the petitioner's husband within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost.” 4. In Union of India & Ors. v. G. Vasudevan Pillai & Ors. (supra), it has been held that ex-servicemen were rightly debarred from Dearness Relief on their pension after they got themselves re-employed to a civil post under the Government of India. 5. The fact situation in WP(C) 944/2015 is completely different with the above case. The question to be decided in G. Vasudevan Pillai (supra) was whether the decision of the Union of India not to allow Dearness Relief on pension to the ex-servicemen on their re-employment in a civil post was in accordance with law. In the present case, there is no question of re-employment. 6. The fact situation being completely different, I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out any ground for review. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. _