Disposed

Papari Barman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Nov 2025WP(C)/714/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow sought old-scheme pensionary benefits for her deceased husband, a disabled Grade-IV employee whose appointment was delayed by the State despite earlier court directions. The Court held the new pension scheme, effective 01.02.2005, governed the appointment and directed quantification and expeditious release of any unreleased benefits under that scheme within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training to examine, quantify and release pensionary benefits due under the new pension scheme within 60 days.

Papari Barman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010018732022

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/714/2022

¶6

PAPARI BARMAN

¶7

W/O- LATE PRAFULLA BARMAN, R/O- NARUWA, VILL.- BALIJAN CHARIALI, P.S. AND P.O. MUKALMUA, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR-06. 2:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 ASSAM 3:DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMAN TRAINING GUWAHATI-08 REHABARI ASSAM

¶9

4:SUPERINTENDENT SKILL AND EMPLOYMENT AND ENTERPREUNOR DEPARTMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE BARPETA-781301.

¶10

5:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR MINTU SAIKIA,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. B GOGOI,SC,FINANCE DEPARTMENT,

¶13

Page No.# 2/10

¶14

ASSAM.,MR S P DAS (R.Nos. 3 & 4),SC, AG

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

06.11.2025

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General; Mr. C.K.S Baruah, learned Jr. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. R Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance.

¶19

2. The petitioner before this Court has prayed for a direction for release of the pensionary benefits which she claims is entitled to have been released for the services rendered by her deceased husband who was an employee of Employment Exchange in Barpeta. The late husband of the writ petitioner was a person with disability and pursuant to his employment, he was posted at Employment Exchange Barpeta in a Grade-IV Post. The late husband of the writ petitioner along with other similarly situated persons have approached this court putting a challenge to seeking a direction from this Court as their names were not reflected in the final select list for the recruitment process undertaken by the State pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.06.2005.

¶20

3. The late husband of the writ petitioner was a petitioner in WP(C) No. 1424 of 2011. This writ petition along with other connected matters came to be heard and disposed of by order of a Co-ordinate Bench on 23.04.2014. The Coordinate Bench concluded that the recruitment drive was carried out in the year 2005-06 to fill up 662 backlog vacancies of Grade-III & IV. These vacancies

¶21

Page No.# 3/10

¶22

therefore were pertaining to previous years prior to the year 2005-06. However, since the year 2005-06, no review was carried out by the State regarding identification of posts earmarked to be filled by persons with disability or what did the list so prepare. The Co-ordinate Bench accepted the submissions made before the Court that there were certain anomalies found in the select list because of which the late husband of the writ petitioner and other similarly situated persons could not be appointed to the vacancies which were sought to be filled up under the recruitment drive for the year 2005-06. Accordingly, the Co-ordinate Bench ordered that these vacancies which are available in different departments for filling up by persons with disability and the list of such persons being available with the Social Welfare Department, a direction was issued to carry out recruitment to these vacancies available by making after proper verification. All administrative departments were directed to co-operate with the Social Welfare Department in ensuring that the petitioners were suitably accommodated against the identified posts in the respective department. The Social Welfare Department being the nodal department was directed to verify the position of the petitioners vis-a-vis the selection process and proceed with their appointment in terms of their position. The above exercise was directed to be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the said writ petition attained finality as no appeal was preferred.

¶23

4. The petitioner again approached the Court by filing W.P(C) No. 6121/2021 claiming for pension under the New Contributory Pension Scheme. This writ petition came to be closed by order dated 22.11.2021 by the following order:

¶24

“Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s husband had been working as a casual employee in the P&RD Department for a long time till the time the petitioner was temporarily appointed,

¶25

Page No.# 4/10

¶26

vide order dated 22.01.2019, as Grade-IV in the office of the ITI, Barpeta under the Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship Department, Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam. He submits that the said order dated 22.01.2019 has been made on the basis of the order dated 23.04.2015 passed by this Court in Bhupen Bhuyan & 105 Others vs. The State of Assam and Others in WP(C) 1424/2011 wherein the candidates, who are persons with disabilities had taken part in the selection process in terms of an Advertisement dated 09.06.2005. He submits that this Court in WP(C) 1424/2011 had directed that all those persons who took part in the selection process in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 09.06.2005 should be accommodated against identified posts in various departments.

¶27

The petitioner’s counsel submits that soon after the petitioner’s husband’s temporary appointment vide order dated 22.01.2019 in the Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship Department, the petitioner’s husband expired on 03.07.2019 i.e. after 5 (five) months of his appointment. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is eligible to be given pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the new Contributory Pension Scheme.

¶28

Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2 while Ms. A.

¶29

Talukdar, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.1.

¶30

On considering the averments made in the writ petition, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made any representation with regard to her claim for pension and pensionary benefits under the new Contributory Pension Scheme prior to approaching this Court. As there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should first approach the respondent nos.3 and 4 with regard to her grievance.

¶31

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with liberty being given to the petitioner, to approach the respondents with regard to her claim for payment of pension and pensionary benefits as per the new Contributory Pension Scheme. In the event the petitioner files a representation, the same should be considered and a decision taken by the respondent no. 3 within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the representation and a copy of this order.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.”

¶33

5. Subsequently, the present writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present proceedings, praying for a direction to release of pensionary benefits payable to her deceased husband who in the meantime expired. The Co-ordinate Bench while entertaining the present writ petition by order dated

¶34

Page No.# 5/10

¶35

31.08.2023 issued the following direction:

¶36

“ 7. As such, the Director of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam, respondent No. 3 is directed to do the needful for the purpose of giving the benefits of compassionate family pension scheme of the State to the petitioner on the death of her husband, Prafulla Barman, in consultation with the Commissioner and Entrepreneurship Department and further, if so required, with the Finance Department of the State as well as the Chief Secretary of the State.”

¶37

6. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ appeal being Writ Appeal No. 48 of 2024 which also came to be disposed of by the following order:

¶38

“23.02.2024

¶39

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

¶40

By way of this intra-Court appeal, the respondent State has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.714/2022 whereby the learned Single Judge while directing the Director of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam to do the needful for the purpose of giving the benefit of compassionate family pension scheme of the State to the respondent in consultation with the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship Department and further, if so required, with the Finance Department as well as the Chief Secretary of the State. The writ petition is still pending and has not been decided finally.

¶41

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant State is having an opportunity to place their case before the learned Single Judge clarifying the stand of the State Government. As such, we do not find any case for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of.”

¶42

7. Subsequent thereto, the State filed an interlocutory application being I.A(Civil) No. 1350/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 714/2022 seeking vacation of the order dated 31.08.2023. This vacation came to be rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 05.06.2025. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

¶43

28. As noted above, the Court by its common order dated 23.04.2015 passed in WP(C) Nos. 1424/2011 and 3494/2011 directed to complete the exercise within a period of 4 (four) months and the State authorities including the Skill, Employment & Entrepreneurship Department, Government of Assam as well as the Director of

¶44

Page No.# 6/10

¶45

Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam did not seek any leave of the Court for extension of time to comply with the direction of the Court dated 23.04.2015 passed in WP(C) Nos. 1424/2011 and 3494/2011.

¶46

29. It is abundantly clear from the above that the respondent authorities without the fault of the husband of the petitioner, delayed his appointment as Grade IV under the PwD quota in spite of the vacancies, violating the order of the Court dated 23.04.2015 passed WP(C) Nos. 1424/2011 and 3494/2011, whereby official respondents were directed to complete the entire exercise of appointment under the PwD quota within 4 (four) months. Though the Labour Department/Skill, Employment & Entrepreneurship Department, Government of Assam as well as the Director of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam under the Skill, Employment & Entrepreneurship Department of the State way back on August 2015 itself were aware of the said direction dated 23.04.2015 of the Court, noted above, from the communication of the Social Welfare Department, Assam; but the respondent authorities appointed the husband of the petitioner only on 22.01.2021.

¶47

30. On failure on the part of the official respondents/authorities, including the applicant, as noted above, to comply with the directions of the Court, that too within the time that was specified by the Court, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner should not suffer.

¶48

31. Had the husband of the petitioner Prafulla Barman been appointed within time, he would have rendered service for more than a year and the writ petitioner would have got all the benefits of pension as well as the benefits under the Die in Harness Scheme.

¶49

32. For the reasons above, this Court is of the opinion that this interlocutory application, being devoid of merit, does not call for any such alteration/modification of the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in the connected WP(C) No. 714/2022, preferred by the opposite party No. 1 as writ petitioner.

¶50

33. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands dismissed.

¶51

34. Return the records bearing File Nos. (i) SKE.93/2017 of the Skill, Employment & Entrepreneurship Department, Government of Assam and (ii) DET(E)111/2015 of the Director of Employment & Craftsmen Training, Assam to Mr. S. P. Das, learned standing counsel for the Skill, Employment & Entrepreneurship Department, Government of Assam, obtaining necessary acknowledgment from him.”

¶52

8. The petitioner before this Court seeks to that in view of the categorical findings arrived at by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.08.2023 and

¶53

Page No.# 7/10

¶54

the subsequent order passed in the I.A(Civil) No. 1350/2024, the respondents are duty bound to carry out the orders and against these orders, writ appeals being filed which also came to be disposed of vide W.A No. 48/2024 & W.A No. 235/2025. Therefore, the petitioners are duty bound to grant pensionary benefits from the respondents.

¶55

9. Mr. R Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance submits that the petitioner is bound by the appointment order which is at Annexure-B (Page-23) to the writ petition which was issued on 22.01.2019. By the said order, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner will submit undertaking at the time of joining and they will abide by the new pension rules. Therefore, under the new pension rules, petitioner's pension can be worked out on the basis of such proposals being submitted by the administrative department and thereafter the necessary pensionary benefits can be released.

¶56

10. Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the respondents for the Skill Development Department as well as the other counsel representing the respondents also submit that the petitioner’s claim would be worked out under the new pension rules.

¶57

11. Having heard counsel for parties and upon perusal of the various orders, it is seen that by the appointment order dated 22.01.2019, petitioner was appointed under the Directorate of Employment and Craft Training. That appointment order clearly reflects that the petitioner will have to submit an undertaking at the time of joining that they will abide by the new pension rules. The petitioner's husband duly joined in the said post and also submitted his declaration to be governed by the new pension rules. This is also reflected in

¶58

Page No.# 8/10

¶59

the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P(C) No. 6121 of 2021, whereby the claim before the writ petitioner was to consider the petitioner eligible for pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the new contributory pension scheme, which is the new pension scheme. The petition, although dismissed, liberty was granted to approach the respondents towards the claim for the pension and pensionary benefits under the new contributory pension scheme.

¶60

12. In the present proceedings also, at paragraph-10 of the writ petition, there is an averment made by the petitioner that the petitioner has received the pensionary benefit under the new pension scheme rule but not the Old pension scheme.

¶61

13. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court, praying for release of or consideration of pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme on the basis of the contention raised that had the petitioner been appointed in time, in pursuance to the directions contained in the order passed in W.P(C) No. 1424 of 2011, the petitioner's late husband would have been appointed in terms of the said order and appropriate pension orders would have been granted under the old pension scheme. The further contention is that the Coordinated Bench by order dated 31-08-2023 and the subsequent order dated 05-06-2025 has reiterated the claim of the pension payable to the petitioner under the Compassionate Family Pension Scheme. The new pension scheme was effective from 1st February 2005.

¶62

14. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner is premised on the orders passed earlier by the Coordinated Bench by the order dated 23-04-2015 passed in WP(C) No. 1424 of 2011 read with the order dated 31-08-2023 passed in the

¶63

Page No.# 9/10

¶64

present proceedings and order dated 05-06-2025 passed in I.A(C) No. 1350 of 24 (since disposed). The petitioner's attempt to interpret these orders that he is entitled to pension under the old pension rules on the face of it is not acceptable for this simple reason that the direction of the Court in W.P(C) 1424 of 2011 and other connected writ petitions was issued on 23-04-2015. The new pension scheme was brought into effect on 01-02-2005. Therefore, on the date when the direction of this Court was issued on 23-04-2015 passed in W.P(C) 1424 of 2011, the new pension scheme was already in force. The appointment order given to the petitioner by the order dated 22-01-2019 also clearly reflects that the petitioner will be governed by the new pension rules and a declaration to that effect is required to be given by the petitioner which the petitioner has given in page number 29 which is enclosed to the writ petition as annexure G. This appointment order has been accepted by the petitioner without any demur.

¶65

15. Under such circumstances, the interpretation sought to be projected before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to be governed by the earlier pension scheme is ex-facie not acceptable in as much as the new pension scheme was brought into effect from 01-02-2005 and the claim of the writ petitioner stood crystallized with effect from the orders passed by this Court by the order dated 23-04-2015 passed in WP(C) No. 1424 of 2011 and other connected matters writ petition. That apart, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6121 of 2021 wherein in the recital of the order dated 22.11.2021 itself passed dismissing the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner's claim before the Court is for grant of pension and pensionary benefits under the new contributory pension scheme.

¶66

16. In view of all the above, the Court does not find any merit in the writ

¶67

Page No.# 10/10

¶68

petition save and accept to issue a direction to the respondents that the claim of pensionary benefits of the petitioner under the New Pension Rules 2005 if any, yet to be released to the writ petitioner under the new pension scheme and to be calculated appropriately by the administrative department, the same shall be released expeditiously without any further delay. The administrative department, namely, Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Guwahati will examine the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders quantifying any pensionary benefits under the new pension scheme yet to be released to the writ petitioner and if so, necessary proposals thereto shall be placed by the authority for release of such pensionary benefits.

¶69

17. In the event, it is found that the benefits due to the writ petitioner has already been released, then an order to that effect shall also be made. Any orders passed by the respondent as directed copies thereof shall be served on the writ petitioner. The entire exercise will be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶70

18. This writ petitions stand disposed of to the above extent. Pending I.As are also disposed of.

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

Comparing Assistant

Papari Barman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papari Barman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranab Kr. Das Vs Assam Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd. and 20 Ors.

C/N 110 Gaising Rongmei Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pradyut Baruah Vs Kavitha Padmanabhan and Anr.

Papari Barman Vs Paban Kr Borthakur, I.A.S. and 3 Ors.

Sri Lalit Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Amina Begum Vs Chandan Sarma and Anr.