Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1844 (GAU)

Junu Das D/O Late Bonti Das v. State of Assam

2025-11-13

KARDAK ETE

body2025
Judgment & Order : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, AG, for the respondent No. 1; Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2; Ms. A. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Mr. R. M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to finalize the payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner and to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner’s father, taking into account the total length of service without any deduction, in terms of the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 3. The father of the petitioner, namely, Late Bonti Das, was working as Muster Roll worker under the Executive Engineer, PWD, Golaghat Road Division, since 01.06.1981 till his retirement on 31.05.2001. The service of the petitioner’s late father was regularized vide order dated 30.11.2005. After his retirement, an office order was issued for payment of leave salary/gratuity as admissible. The mother of the petitioner had died on 11.01.2005 and her father died on 01.11.2012, leaving behind 2 (two) sons and the petitioner. 4. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner submitted the pension papers to the concerned authority. At the time of submission of the pension papers, the petitioner was aged about 17 years. Therefore, being ignorant of the family pension entitlement and being an unmarried minor daughter, no proposal was submitted for payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner. After scrutiny of the pension papers, the respondent authorities, vide letter dated 27.10.2016, sanctioned the terminal gratuity amounting to Rs. 24,528/- (Rupees twenty-four thousand five hundred twenty-eight) only, which was accordingly released in favour of the brother of the petitioner. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that her father had joined his service on 01.06.1981 and retired from service on 31.05.2001 after rendering more than 20 (twenty) years of service. Therefore, the pensionary benefits ought to have been granted without deducting the initial 6 (six) years of Muster Roll service period. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that her father had joined his service on 01.06.1981 and retired from service on 31.05.2001 after rendering more than 20 (twenty) years of service. Therefore, the pensionary benefits ought to have been granted without deducting the initial 6 (six) years of Muster Roll service period. The petitioner, being an unmarried and dependent daughter, is entitled to receive family pension in terms of the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Despite submission of all necessary documents, including the unmarried and unemployment certificates, along with representations before the concerned authorities claiming family pension, the respondent authorities have failed to release the same in favour of the petitioner. 6. It is contended that in terms of the relevant Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be provided with family pension, as the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, clearly provides that an unmarried dependent daughter is entitled to receive family pension. It is further contended that, in view of the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in 2019 (2) GLT 805 , the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits accrued to her late father, inasmuch as the terminal gratuity was sanctioned after deducting 6 (six) years of initial service rendered as Muster Roll worker, whereas this Hon’ble Court has clearly held that no such deduction of 6 (six) years can be made. 7. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the judgment of this Court in Sanjita Roy (supra), submits that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits in respect of her late father, as the authorities had paid the terminal gratuity after deducting 6 (six) years of service rendered as a Muster Roll worker. In the said case, this Court has interfered with such deduction and has held that while the fixation of 20 (twenty) years of continuous service is not arbitrary, the deduction of 6 (six) years is unreasonable. Consequently, a direction was issued to grant benefits to petitioners whose continuous length of service meets the benchmark of 20 (twenty) years without any deduction. Consequently, a direction was issued to grant benefits to petitioners whose continuous length of service meets the benchmark of 20 (twenty) years without any deduction. He further submits that there is no dispute regarding the petitioner being the unmarried dependent daughter of the deceased employee, and the amended Rule clearly provides that an unmarried dependent daughter of a deceased Government employee is entitled to family pension. Therefore, the denial of family pension to the petitioner, being the unmarried dependent daughter, is not justified and is illegal. 8. Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent No. 2, along with the learned counsels appearing for the other respondents, fairly submits that the petitioner is entitled to be provided family pension in terms of the amended Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, as notified on 09.08.2018. However, such entitlement would be subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions attached to the amended Rule 143. Therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and determine whether she fulfills all the conditions required under the said amended Rule 143 for grant of family pension. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. Indisputably, the father of the petitioner was working as a Muster Roll worker from 01.06.1981 until his retirement on 31.05.2001. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is the unmarried dependent daughter of Late Bonti Das. After the retirement of the petitioner’s late father, upon submission of the pension papers, the terminal gratuity was sanctioned and accepted by the petitioner’s brother. The terminal gratuity was calculated by deducting the initial 6 (six) years of Muster Roll service in order to meet the requirement of the 20 (twenty) years of continuous service. 11. This Court in the case of Sanjita Roy (supra) has clearly held that while the fixation of 20 (twenty) years of continuous service is not arbitrary, the deduction of 6 (six) years thereof is unreasonable. Consequently, a direction has been issued to provide the benefits of pensionary entitlements to those whose total length of service, including the period as Muster Roll worker, meets the benchmark of 20 (twenty) years without any deduction. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “28. Consequently, a direction has been issued to provide the benefits of pensionary entitlements to those whose total length of service, including the period as Muster Roll worker, meets the benchmark of 20 (twenty) years without any deduction. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “28. In the said case of R. Lalkhum (Supra), this Court was dealing with a similar subject of denial of pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner. In paragraph- 14 of the said judgment referring to a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court it has been held that the pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet-will and pleasure of the Government and on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant and right to receive pension is a property under Article 31(1) and by mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. On the point of apprehension raised by the Department that grant of pension to the petitioner may open a floodgate causing a huge financial burden on the Department, this Court held that only because floodgates of cases may be opened, itself cannot be a ground to close the doors of the Court of justice. Referring to an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (7) SCC 564 (Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. vs. C.K. Rajon & Ors.), the Court held that the doors of the Court must be kept open. Further, one may gainfully refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 2007 (9) SCC 625 (Coal India Pvt. Limited vs. Saroj Kr. Mishra) and also 2009 (5) Supreme 4 N Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose and others, wherein arguments made on behalf of the State on opening of a floodgate have been negated. The Court held that only because there is a possibility of floodgate of litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be taken away and the Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties. 29. Rival submissions of the parties have been duly considered. The decision to grant pension to casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized and have completed 20 years of total service cannot, per se, be termed as arbitrary. 29. Rival submissions of the parties have been duly considered. The decision to grant pension to casual Muster Roll Workers whose services were regularized and have completed 20 years of total service cannot, per se, be termed as arbitrary. The question which rises for determination is whether the decision contained in the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2009, to deduct 6 years of service meet the test of reasonability under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While determining the aforesaid question, the Court is reminded of the fact that the petitioners belong to the economically lower strata of the society. As has been held by various judicial pronouncements, it has been laid down that pension is not a bounty or a grace but valuable right accruing by an employee if he fulfills the conditions to be entitled for such pension. The conditions imposed in the instant case for the petitioners who are Muster Roll Workers is completion of a total period of continuous service of 20 years. While this Court, as has been observed above, does not hold that fixation of 20 years of continuous service an arbitrary, the deduction of 6 years does not appear to be reasonable and fair. This Court does not find force that the exercise, in publishing the notification dated 20.05.2009 itself was an under Rule 31 of the Rules and therefore, further exercise is not permissible. It will be wholly unfair and unreasonable to deny a Muster Roll Worker who is admittedly completed 20 years of continuous service of pension in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.09.2003. However, deduction of 6 years or for that matter, any period to calculate 20 years of continuous service, does not appear to be reasonable. The entire exercise of issuing the notification should be in a positive manner so as to ensure that maximum benefit is given to the incumbents who undoubtedly belong to the economically lower strata of the society. It should have been the endeavour of the State not to make a further classification of Muster Roll Workers who have completed 20 years of continuous service by introducing the condition of deduction of 6 years of casual service. Admittedly, there is no difference at all between the services rendered by the petitioners while they were employed in a casual manner or after the regularization. 30. Admittedly, there is no difference at all between the services rendered by the petitioners while they were employed in a casual manner or after the regularization. 30. In view of such position, it is held that deduction of 6 years from their services while calculating 20 years of continuous service does not appear to be reasonable and fair. As regards the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Monsing Tisso (Supra), this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Nair that the decision should be read in the context of the pleadings. It appears that an impression was given to the Court that 10 years of continuous service was the condition precedent for being eligible for pension. However, even without taking recourse to the said decision this Court has considered the present writ petitions in the forgoing manner. 31. In view of above discussion and by taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements on the subject, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as a Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench mark of 20 years without any deduction, the benefit of pension should be made available to them. While carrying out said exercise, the respondent authorities are also directed to take recourse Rule 67 for those petitioners who fail to meet the bench mark of 20 years by 12 months or less. No order as to cost. 12. Perusal of the above judgment reflects that the deduction of 6 (six) years from the service while calculating the 20 (twenty) years of continuous service cannot be made, as it is unreasonable and unfair. In the present case, the deduction of 6 (six) years was made in 2016, which was prior to the judgment referred to above by this Court. Therefore, the authorities may reconsider the entitlement of pensionary benefits in respect of the late father of the petitioner in accordance with law. 13. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is the unmarried dependent daughter of the deceased Government employee, who served from 01.06.1981 to 31.05.2001. His service was subsequently regularized in the year 2005, and he passed away on 01.11.2012. 13. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is the unmarried dependent daughter of the deceased Government employee, who served from 01.06.1981 to 31.05.2001. His service was subsequently regularized in the year 2005, and he passed away on 01.11.2012. The State of Assam, vide notification dated 09.08.2018, amended the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, particularly Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 143, by substituting the words “unmarried minor daughter” with “unmarried dependent daughter.” It is also noticed that the amended Rule provides certain conditions by way of a proviso, which reads as under: “ Amendment of rule 143 2. In the principal Rules, in rule 143 – (a) in sub-rule (i), in clause (d), the words "unmarried minor daughters" shall be substituted by the words "unmarried dependent daughters." (b) in sub-rule (ii), in clause (c), for the punctuation mark "." appearing at the end, the punctuation mark "." shall be substituted and thereafter the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided that family pension shall be allowed to continue beyond 21 years of age to an unmarried dependent daughter of a Government Servant /Pensioner, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions :- (i) that there is no disabled child eligible for life time family pension; (ii) that a certificate of non-marriage and non-employment in the prescribed format duly certified by the C.O. / B.D.O. concerned (Annexure-III) shall be furnished by the unmarried dependent daughters to the Treasury or Bank once in a year." (c) in sub-rule (ii), in clause (c), after Note 1 the following new notes shall be inserted, namely, - Note 2, Note 3, Note 4 and Note 5 :- Note 2 : In cases where there are two or more family members (minor son/unmarried dependent daughters) present at the time of death of the widow/widower, the family pension as admissible shall be divided to all of them in equal shares till their eligibility ceases as per sub-rule (ii) (b) or (c) of rule 143 (as amended). If all members are minors, the family pension shall be paid through legal/natural guardian, otherwise family pension shall be paid in the following manner - (a) the family pension shall be paid to the eldest eligible member of the family who shall divide it equally among other eligible members; (b) if the eldest eligible member becomes ineligible to receive the family pension, it shall be paid to the next eligible member of the family who shall divide it equally among other eligible members and so on. (c) in every case, the family pension recipient has to sign and submit an indemnity bond to the competent authority so that the recipient divides the amount amongst the beneficiaries in equal share. Note 3: If at the time of submission of family pension claim, there are no minor children in the family, the family pension shall be paid from the date of filing application by the claimant or from the date of coming into force of this notification whichever is later. No claim for arrear benefit under this clause shall be entertained. Otherwise, the family pension shall be paid from the date following the date of death of the widow/widower as the case may be. Note 4: In cases where family pension is already being drawing on the date of publication of this notification, it shall be allowed to continue by the current recipient till his/her eligibility ceases as per normal rules and thereafter the family pension shall be paid as per the procedure mentioned above at Note 2 under Rule 143(ii)(c). Note 5: The eligibility of dependent father, mother, brother (up to 18 years) and unmarried sister (up to 21 years) for family pension under the notification No. PPG(G) 10/2013/38 dated 20/08/2015 issued by this department is applicable only if there is no unmarried dependent daughters or disabled child eligible for life time family pension present in the family of the deceased Government Servant. The above mentioned notification is also applicable in cases where the Government Servant dies unmarried." The provisions of this notification shall cover all cases of family pension irrespective of the date of death of the Government Servant/Pensioner.” 14. A bare reading of the above Rule shows that unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to family pension, subject to certain conditions laid down therein for the family pension of a deceased Government servant. 15. A bare reading of the above Rule shows that unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to family pension, subject to certain conditions laid down therein for the family pension of a deceased Government servant. 15. Having considered the amended provisions of Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and also considering that the petitioner is an unmarried dependent daughter of late Bonti Das, I am of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to be provided with the family pension in terms of the law. Thus, denial of such family pension would be unjustified and illegal. As such, the respondent authorities are under a bounden duty to provide the family pension to the petitioner. Further, I am of the considered view that the issue of pensionary benefits in respect of her late father also deserves consideration in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in Sanjita Roy (supra). 16. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to provide family pension to the petitioner in respect of her late father, Bonti Das, within a reasonable period, but in any case, not later than 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. It is further directed that while granting the family pension to the petitioner in respect of her late father, Bonti Das, any amount already received by her brother or other family members towards pensionary benefits, including terminal gratuity, shall be duly adjusted. 18. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.