Partly allowed

N Shyam Kishore Singha v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/4977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an ex-service man appointed as constable in Assam Police Border, retired without pension being processed due to nomination issues. This Court, relying on Rule 136 of Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 and accepting counsel’s consent, directed respondents to process pension papers and grant benefits within four months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to process the petitioner's pension papers and send them to the Accountant General within two months, and to finalize and grant pension within a further month.

N Shyam Kishore Singha Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010139952021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4977/2021

¶5

N SHYAM KISHORE SINGHA

¶6

S/O LATE N. ENGENJAW SINGHA, R/O HOUSE NO. 37, PATHARKUCHI, P.O. BASISTHA, P.S. BASISTHA CHARIALI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 781028

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME (A) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

¶10

2:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR

¶11

GENERAL OF POLICE (BORDER) ASSAM SRIMANTAPUR GUWAHATI 781032

¶12

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶13

BORDER KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 781022

¶14

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ADMN) GUWAHATI ASSAM.

¶15

5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶16

PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI 78102

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K SINGHA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 10-12-2021

¶24

Heard Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. A. Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶25

The petitioner’s case in brief is that he was an ex-service man who was appointed as a clerk in the Indian Army in the year 1977. He retired in the year 1992. Thereafter, he was appointed as a constable in the Assam Police Border Organization under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners (PIF) vide order dated 08.05.2001 issued by the respondent No.3 w.e.f. 01.05.2001. After serving for almost 18 years, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation vide order dated 28.02.2019. The petitioner thereafter submitted his pension papers, but the same has not been processed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶26

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner’s only immediate family at the time of submission of his nomination paper, while serving with Assam Border Police Organization, was his wife, who unfortunately eloped with another person in the year 2002-03.

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

The petitioner’s counsel submits that as on date, he is living with his nephew and after the filing of the writ petition, he has submitted fresh pension papers nominating his nephew, namely N. Sanjay Singh as his nominee in terms of Rule 136 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969. He also submits that he has cancelled the earlier nomination of his ex-wife as nominee. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to process the pension papers of the petitioner and disburse the pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶29

Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. A. Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submit that they have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the Sub-Rule 7, 8 & 9 of the Rule 136 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶31

Sub-Rule 7, 8 & 9 of Rule 136 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 states as follows:-

¶32

“(7) Immediately on the death of a nominee in respect of whom no special provision has been made in the nomination under clause (a) of sub-rule (4) or on the occurrence of any event by reason of which the nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause (b) of that sub-rule or sub-rule (5) , the officer shall send to the appropriate authority a notice in writing formally cancelling the nomination, together with a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.

¶33

Note 1: while a nomination as also any change therein will normally be made by an officer during his service, he may be allowed to make a fresh nomination or change his earlier nomination after retirement if such a contingency arises.

¶34

(8) Every nomination made and every notice of cancellation given by an officer under this rule be sent by the officer to his Accounts Officer in the case of a gazetted officer and to the head of his office in the case of a non-gazetted officer. Immediately on receipt of a nomination from a non-gazetted officer, the

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

head of the office shall countersign it indicating the date of receipt and keep in under his custody.

¶37

(9) Every nomination made and every notice of cancellation given, by an officer shall, to the extent that it is valid, take effect from the date on which it is received by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (8).

¶38

Note 1: In the event of an officer having no family as defined in sub-rule (1), the nomination can be made in favour of any one or more persons under sub-rule (2) or of a body of persons, corporate or otherwise. Similarly, when the Officer has only one member in his family, in whose favour the original nomination has been made, an alternate nomination can be made in favour of any persons who is not a member of his family or in favour of a body of peons , corporate or otherwise, to cover the contingency of the nominee predeceasing the officer.

¶39

Note 2 : Acknowledgement to the Government servant concerned confirming that the nominations made by him and the related notices have been duly received and placed on record should invariably be sent to every officer making a nomination by the Account Officer in the case of permanent gazetted officers and the Head of Office in the case of all non-gazetted officers and officiating Gazetted Officers. The Government servants should also, in the interest of their nominees preserve copies of the nomination made by them and of the related acknowledgements either in their personal custody or in the safe deposit alongith their other important personal documents, etc. from where these may be expected to come into the possession of the beneficiaries in the event of their death.”

¶40

As can be seen from a perusal of the sub-rule 8 and 9 of Rule 136 of the Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969 a nomination can be cancelled and a new nominee nominated. As such, there should be no impediment to the grant of pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner on this count.

¶41

In view of Rule 136 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and as per the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 5, to process the pension papers of the petitioner and send the same to the respondent No.6 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

respondent No.6 shall finalize the pension papers and grant pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner, within a further period of one month.

¶44

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

N Shyam Kishore Singha v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Shyam Kishore Singha v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Taijuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Suja Hussain Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The State Level Scrutiny Committee Rep. by Its Chairperson Vs Moonsoon Barkakoti and Ors.

Anku Mani Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the Govt of Assam and 10 Ors.

Sabibor Rahman Vs Rima Trishna Haloi, Acs

Ranjit Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.