Basanti Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Basanti Mazumdar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be the widow of the deceased Narayan Chandra Mazumdar (Assistant Teacher, Vivekananda M.E. School, Bokajan), is entitled to grant of family pension. +1 more

Court's answer

There are serious disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner is the wife of the deceased Government servant; the Court therefore declined to go into her claim.

Ratio / Principle

On the petitioner's own affidavit (recording her age as 58 on 21.12.2021), she would have been 7 years of age when her first child was born on 28.12.1970 and 9 years at the second child's birth on 13.10.1972; the affidavit implies she was born in 1963 and not 1954 as submitted.

Key takeaways

The petitioner produced no document proving her marriage to the alleged deceased husband, and there is no family declaration made by the husband showing her to be the wife of a Government servant; these facts imply she is not the wife of her alleged deceased husband.ratio¶¶27
The death certificate shows the alleged husband expired on 05.06.1983 but the death was registered only on 02.03.2004, and the different numerals '4' in the certificate are visibly different, casting doubt on the document.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Michael Zothankhuma, J.), by order dated 17.03.2025 in WP(C)/7293/2021, dismissed the writ petition of Basanti Mazumdar seeking family pension as the widow of Narayan Chandra Mazumdar, an Assistant Teacher in Vivekananda M.E. School, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong, who served from 08.06.1965 and died on 05.06.1983. The Court found serious disputed questions of fact: the petitioner's affidavit dated 21.12.2021 recording her as 58 years old implied she was born in 1963 (not 1954 as submitted) and would have been 7 years of age at the birth of her first child on 28.12.1970; she produced no document proving her marriage and there was no family declaration by the husband showing her as the wife of a Government servant; and the death certificate recorded the death of 05.06.1983 as registered only on 02.03.2004, with visibly differing numerals '4'. Holding that the petitioner had not established that she was the wife of the deceased Government servant, the Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it. The questions whether the school was provincialized and whether the husband's service was pensionable were not decided.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010224512021

2025:GAU-AS:2751

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

Case No. : WP(C)/7293/2021

BASANTI MAZUMDAR

W/O LT NARAYAN CH MAZUMDAR, R/O TENGAHOLLA, PO BOKAJAN, DIST KARBI-ANGLONG, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 DIST KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM 3:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DIPHU KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM

Page No.# 2/4

6:THE TREASURY OFFICER DIPHU KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM

7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL KARBI-ANGLONG DISTRICT COUNCIL DIPHU ASSAM

8:THE HEAD MASTER BIBEKANANDA M.E SCHOLL BOKAJAN PO BOKAJAN DIST KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78248

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, MR. B C DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MS. D D BARMAN,GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE,SC, KARBI ANGLONG,SC, AG

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

ORDER

17.03.2025

Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5, Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4; Mr. R. Ronghang, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 5 & 7; Ms. R.M. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.9.

The petitioner has prayed for grant of family pension on the ground that she is the widow of the deceased Narayan Chandra Mazumdar, who was a

Page No.# 3/4

teacher of Vivekananda M.E. School, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong. Prior to arriving at a decision as to whether the school where the husband of the petitioner worked was a provincialized school and whether the husband of the petitioner was in a pensionable service, a few other questions have to be decided by this Court. Thus, this Court has asked specific particulars about the petitioner’s husband and the petitioner herself, to which the petitioner’s counsel has replied, which is recorded in the next paragraph.

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was born on 21.01.1954 and had her first child with the deceased husband on 28.12.1970. The second child was thereafter born on 13.10.1972. He also submits that the petitioner married her husband prior to giving birth to her children.

The petitioner’s husband was an Assistant Teacher in the Vivekananda M.E. School from 08.06.1965 and he died on 05.06.1983. The present writ petition for grant of family pension was filed only on 21.12.2021.

The affidavit dated 21.12.2021 executed by the petitioner, which is a part of the present writ petition, shows that the petitioner was 58 years of age on 21.12.2021. In that event, the petitioner would have been 7 years of age when she got her first child on 28.12.1970. She would have been 9 years of age when she got her second child on 13.10.1972. In terms of the affidavit at page 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner would have been born in the year 1963 and not 1954.

The petitioner has not been able to produce any documents proving her marriage to her alleged deceased husband. Further, there is no family

Page No.# 4/4

declaration made by the petitioner’s husband showing the petitioner to be the wife of a Government servant. All the above facts imply that the petitioner is not the wife of her alleged deceased husband.

A perusal of the death certificate of the petitioner’s husband shows that the petitioner’s alleged husband expired on 05.06.1983 and the same was registered only on 02.03.2004. Even to the naked eye, the different number ‘4’ in the death certificate are different.

As there are serious disputed questions of fact, this Court is not inclined to go into the claim of the petitioner that she is the wife of the deceased government husband. There is no birth certificate of the children of the petitioner in the writ petition. On considering all the above facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant