Allowed

Sajida Ahmed v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, I.A.S. and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Dec 2021Cont.Cas(C)/490/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court addressed a contempt petition regarding the non-payment of family pension due to an undischarged debt. The Court held that with the employee deceased, disciplinary or criminal proceedings cannot be pending, making the justification for withholding pension invalid. A consequential order directed the authorities to submit and secure approval of the pension proposal.

What did the court decide?

Director of Employment & Craftsmen Training directed to submit pension proposal within 7 days for approval and sanction.

Sajida Ahmed Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri, I.A.S. and 7 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010205232019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/490/2019

¶5

SAJIDA AHMED

¶6

W/O- LT. ABDUR RAHIM AHMED, VILL. KAMALPUR, P.O. KAMALPUR, P.S.BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781352.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI, I.A.S. AND 7 ORS. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SKILL, EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPENURSHIP DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY.- 06.

¶9

2:PUSHPANJALI DAS ACS THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06. 3:BABESH DEKA THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY.-06. 4:SRI DEEPAK NARAIN THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29. 5:MRIGESH NARAYAN BARUA ACS

¶10

Page No.# 2/6

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMEN TRAINING ASSAM REHABARI GUWAHATI-08. 6:PRAFULLA RABHA THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE GOALPARA P.O.- BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121. 7:SUBHASH CH. DAS AFS THE TREASURY OFFICER BARPETA P.O. AND P.S. BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301. 8:BHAKTA PRAFULLA GOSH THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA GOALPARA BRANCH P.O.- BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 78312. 9:RUBI SARMA DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMEN TRAINING ASSAM REHABAR

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR S P DAS

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

ORDER

Page No.# 3/6

06.12.2021

Heard Mr. A A Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SP Das, learned counsel for the Director of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam and Mr. A Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent in the office of the Accountant General (A & E) Assam.

¶20

This contempt petition is instituted for a willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 29.04.2019 in WP(C)No.2594/2019. In paragraph 4 of the order dated 29.04.2019, it has been taken note of that the husband of the petitioner Late Abdur Rahim Ahmed who was appointed as Junior Apprenticeship Advisor in the Industrial Training Institute Jorhat had rendered service for 16 years 2 months and 21 days during his lifetime. On his death, the petitioner had submitted all necessary papers for family pension on account of the service rendered by her deceased husband. There was an earlier writ petition being WP(C)No.5557/2018 in which the order dated 22.01.2019 was passed allowing the State respondents to recover 32 lakhs from the personal account of the deceased husband of the petitioner which was in the Union Bank of India, Goalpara branch and after recovery of the said amount to release the pensionery benefits to the petitioner. In the order dated 29.04.2019 in WP(C)No.2594/2019 this Court had taken note of that the amount of 32 lakhs has been recovered and accordingly the respondents were directed to release the family pension and other pensionery benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

This contempt petition is instituted alleging non-compliance of the said

¶22

Page No.# 4/6

¶23

direction. Mr. SP Das, learned counsel for the respondents in the Directorate of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam takes a stand that over and above, the amount of 32 lakhs, a further amount the total being Rs.52 lakhs is due from the deceased husband of the petitioner. According to Mr. SP Das, learned counsel that is the reason as to why the family pension has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Directorate of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam refers to the provisions of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 (for short, the Rules of 1969) to justify the action of the respondent authorities for not paying the family pension as some further amount is still due from the deceased husband of the petitioner.

¶25

A perusal of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969 would go to show that payment of pension can be withheld pending a disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding against an employee. In a circumstance, where the husband of the petitioner is no more, there cannot remain any further question of any disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding being pending against him. From such point of view, Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969 would be inapplicable. In the inapplicability of the Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, there does not remain any further provision for the respondent authorities to withhold the family pension, even if the recovery is due. Accordingly, no acceptable reasons can be found for not paying the family pension to the petitioner provided her deceased husband was in a pensionable service and he had the qualifying service period required for the purpose.

¶26

Page No.# 5/6

¶27

Mr. SP Das, learned counsel also produces a copy of the communication dated 30.07.2016 from the Joint Director of Employment and Director-in-charge in the Directorate of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Labour and Employment Department to substantiate that pension papers in respect of the petitioner had been forwarded. In the circumstance, instead of continuing further with the contempt petition, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met on a consequential order being passed to the Director of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam to forthwith submit the said proposal for family pension and other pensionery benefits to the petitioner being the wife of Late Abdur Rahim Ahmed before the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship Department. As the Principal Secretary of the said Department is not a respondent contemnor in the present proceeding, we have requested Mr. TC Chutia, learned counsel to represent the Principal Secretary.

¶28

Accordingly, this contempt petition stands closed by directing the Director of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam to forthwith submit the proposal for family pension of the petitioner within a period not later than 7 days from today. Upon the same being submitted, the Principal Secretary shall do the needful and if otherwise the deceased husband of the petitioner was in a pensionable service and he had the qualifying service required for the purpose, the pension proposal be approved and sanctioned and sent to the Accountant General for doing the needful within a period of one month from the date of submission and receipt of the proposal.

¶29

Page No.# 6/6

¶30

In no case, the pension shall be denied again for the same reasons for the amount being due from the deceased husband of the petitioner having not been recovered.

¶31

Contempt petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Sajida Ahmed v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, I.A.S. and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajida Ahmed v. Ashutosh Agnihotri, I.A.S. and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gsr Ventures Private Limited Vs Sunil Sharma and 2 Ors.

Jamir Uddin Mondal and Anr. Vs Jishnu Barua, IAS and 7 Ors.

Makhoni Saikia Vs Maninder Singh, I.A.S. and 2 Ors.

Nabam Shelly and 65 Ors. Vs Naresh Kumar and 2 Ors.

Motiur Rahman Vs Anbhamatun M.P.

Barsha Devi @ Barasa Devi Vs Kumar Sanjay Krishna

Smti Kusum Devi Vs Biswadeep Das

Dhanapati Roy and 5 Ors. Vs Preetom Saikia and 2 Ors.

Chayanika Deka Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mozibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ramen Kr Sarma and 41 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Chinmoy Das Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Amit Basumatari Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gagan Chaudhury and 2 Ors. Vs the Gauhati University and 6 Ors.