Allowed

Shika Roy v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Jun 2019WP(C)/6523/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an award by the District Legal Services Authority directing railway authorities to grant pension to a daughter. The court held the Authority lacked jurisdiction to decide lis between parties and set aside the award.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Karimganj directing Railway Authorities to grant pension to Respondent No. 7 is set aside.

Shika Roy Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010046272017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6523/2017

¶5

1:SHIKA ROY

¶6

W/O- LATE ASHOK KUMAR ROY, VILL AND P.O- MAHISHASAN, P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 6 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY KARIMGANJ REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ

¶11

3:THE CHAIRMAN THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ

¶12

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER N F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 5:THE SR. DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER N F RAILWAY LUMDING

¶13

6:THE MANAGER UNITED BANK OF INDIA KARIMGANJ BRANCH P.O AND DIST- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

7:ROJIO ROY D/O- LATE ASHOK KUMAR ROY VILL- PURBA KANISHAIL P.O AND P.S- KARIMGANJ DIST- KARIMGANJ PIN- 78871

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S DAS

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 10-06-2019

¶21

Heard Mr. F. U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 1; Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

¶22

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 30.03.2017 passed by the learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Karimganj in Pre-Litigation Case No. 110/2016 by which the Railway Authorities were directed to allow the present respondent No. 7 to enjoy the benefit of pension as per Railway Act.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the District Legal Services Authority has no authority or jurisdiction to pass any such order or award, at best it would be of recommendary in nature even the contesting parties agreed to.

¶24

In the present case, this Court has also noted that there seems to be a dispute as regards the entitlements relating to pensionary benefits between the second wife of an employee of the Railways, namely, Late Ashok Kumar Roy (petitioner in this petition) and Smt. Rojio Roy, respondent No. 7, the unmarried daughter of the aforesaid Late Ashok Kumar Roy. The award also does not indicate that it was a consensus order but the said award was passed by the learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Karimganj which has been

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

contested by the second wife, the present petitioner.

¶27

This Court is of the view that the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 does not endow any jurisdiction to the District Legal Services Authority to pass any such award which would decide any lis between the contesting parties.

¶28

Moreover, from the record, it is seen that the matter was put up before the Lok Adalat at Karimganj, where none of the parties were present and in absence of the parties, the Lok Adalat took the view that the matter has not been resolved or settled through conciliation and accordingly, Lok Adalat directed the parties to move the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶29

In view of above, the present petition is allowed.

¶30

The award dated 30.03.2017 passed by the learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Karimganj in Pre-Litigation Case No. 110/2016 directing the Railway Authorities to grant the pensionary benefits in favour of the respondent No. 7 is set aside.

¶31

However, it is left to the parties to approach the competent forum for establishment of their respective rights for grant of the pensionary benefits in respect of the service rendered by the said Late Ashok Kumar Roy, an employee of the Railways.

¶32

Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that the order issued in favour of the petitioner for grant family pension on 12.05.2016 is illegal.

¶33

However, that is an issue the respondent No. 7 can raise before the appropriate forum mas observed above.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Shika Roy v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shika Roy v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumesh Paul Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Nazimul Islam Vs Dipak Kr. Sarma and 2 Ors.

Izaz Yusuf Ahmed Vs Dipak Kr. Sarma and 2 Ors.

Kamaleswar Kalita Vs J. B. Ekka and 2 Ors.

Anjali Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Tilak Chandra Bora Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 Ors.