Dismissed¶¶38

Namita Chakraborty v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Aug 2025WP(C)/8270/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension denied for missing employee; dismissal forfeits past service; CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 ten-year qualifying service shortfall (4 years 6 months served); presumption of death / declaratory suit S.108 Indian Evidence Act 1872; no FIR or complaint lodged; disappearance never officially recorded; claim barred by limitation; Article 226 writ petition; Gauhati High Court; Income Tax Department Group-D staff; dues pending for period in service to be released in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the family pension claim; the respondents were directed to release, in accordance with law, any dues of the petitioner's husband pending for the period he was in service. ¶¶38

Namita Chakraborty Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the family pension claim; the respondents were directed to release, in accordance with law, any dues of the petitioner's husband pending for the period he was in service.

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose husband (a Group-D employee under respondent No.4) went missing in 1985 and was subsequently dismissed from service, is entitled to release of the family pension and all due retirement benefits, along with adequate interest and compensation.

¶¶20

Court's answer

Reading the respondents' affidavit-in-opposition, the court found it abundantly clear that the petitioner's husband was dismissed from service on 15.05.1989.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The court further found apparent that the petitioner has never lodged any complaint nor filed any FIR before the competent authority to prove the alleged missing of her husband, and it was never officially recorded that the husband went missing.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

On those findings, the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension benefits as claimed in the writ petition.ratio¶¶37
The court found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed it.ratio¶¶38
Clarificatory direction forming part of the disposition: in the event any dues of the petitioner's husband are pending for the period he was in service, the respondents shall release the same in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C)/8270/2017, Gauhati High Court, decided 07.08.2025 by Justice Kaushik Goswami): Namita Chakraborty sought, under Article 226 of the Constitution, release of the family pension and all due retirement benefits of her husband Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty, Group-D staff under the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Guwahati, who (per the petitioner) went missing on 05.12.1985. Office records showed last attendance on 23.08.1985; he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.08.1986 and dismissed from service w.e.f 15.05.1989, dismissal entailing forfeiture of past service; he had served only 4 years 6 months (joined 21.02.1981) against the minimum qualifying service of 10 years under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the claim was contended to be barred by limitation. The petitioner had lodged no complaint or FIR and the disappearance was never officially recorded, nor had she obtained any declaration presuming death under S.108, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension benefits as claimed, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, while directing that any dues of the husband pending for the period in service be released in accordance with law.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010007032017

2025:GAU-AS:10331

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/8270/2017

¶6

NAMITA CHAKRABORTY

¶7

W/O- ADHIR RANJAN CHAKRABORTY, R/O- BIRUBARI, JANAKPUR, OPP MADHAB DAS SCHOOL, GUWAHATI-16, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF FINANCE, REVENUE DEPTT., NEW DELHI

¶10

2:THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (INCOME TAX) D/O- REVENUE ROOM NO. 255 CBDT(HQ) NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NORTH EASTERN REGION AAYKAR BHAWAN G S ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781008

¶12

4:THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 CHENIKUTHI BUILDING GHY-

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS,

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT. S.G.I., DR. B N GOGOI (SC, INCOME TAX),MR. S SARMA(SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT),MR. S SAIKIA (SC, INCOME TAX)

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 07.08.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. N. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department (for all the respondents).

¶20

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking release of the family pension and all due retirement benefits to the petitioner along with adequate interest and compensation.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, i.e., Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty, while working as Group-D staff under the respondent No.4, suddenly went missing on 05.12.1985 and since then he has been untraceable living behind the petitioner and daughter (now married) without a source of income.

¶22

It is the specific case of the petitioner that immediately after the husband of the petitioner went missing, she prayed before the respondent No.4 for payment of pension and other due retirement benefits and despite repeated representations, the respondents have not considered the same. Hence, the instant petition has been filed on 14.12.2017.

¶23

Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

submits that since the petitioner’s husband has been missing since 1985, the family pension and other retirement benefits as claimed in the instant writ petition ought to have been released to the petitioner.

¶26

Per contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension benefits as claimed in the writ petition under the applicable rules. He further submits that at no relevant point of time, the petitioner has not filed any complaint before any competent authority or lodged any F.I.R. before the jurisdictional police station to prove that her husband has been missing for the last so many years. He further submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner’s husband went missing from 05.12.1985, the service of the petitioner’s husband was suspended and after holding an enquiry, the service of the petitioner was finally dismissed on 15.05.1989.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶28

Apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-inopposition filed on behalf of the respondents on 15.09.2021, which reads as under:-

¶29

“ 11. That in response to the statements made in paragraph 7 the answering deponent begs to submit that as per the office record of answering deponent, Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty last attended office on 23.08.1985. Whereas, petitioner i.e. Smt. Namita Chakraborty stated that her husband went missing on 05.12.1985. However, petitioner had never lodged any complaint nor filed any FIR before the competent Authority to prove the above fact regarding missing of her husband and it was never officially recorded that Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty went missing. Further, the answering deponent most respectfull begs to submit that as per the office records, Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty was placed under

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

suspension w.e.f. 01.08.1986 and subsequently he was dismissed from service w.e.f 15.05.1989 and in this regard the petitioner never submited any documents or competent Courts order to prove the fact or presumption of death of Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty under the appropriate provisions of law nor shall go for a declaratory suit for declaring her husband to be dead person under section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or any other prevailing law in force. The petitioner claims defence under ignorance of law it cannot be sustain as mere ignorance of law cannont be good ground for defence under the provisions of law as such answering deponent denies the fact as alleged against the deponent.

¶32

12. That in response to the statement made in paragraph 8 the answering deponent begs to submit that as per the office records Shri Adhir Ranjan Chaktaborty was dismissed from service on 15.05.1989 and dismissal of a Govt. servent from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. Besides that it is pertainent to mention here that as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 i.e. (CCS Pension) Rules minimun quarifying service for pensionery benefits is completion of 10 (Ten) years continious service. But, instant case husband of the petitioner Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakarborty joined service on 21.02.1981 and he last attended office on 23.08.1985 i.e. he served for 4 years 6 months only. Therefore, claim of petitioner is not tenable under the provisions of law and answering deponent deny the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the claim of the Petitioner barred by limitation.

¶33

13. That in response to the statement made in paragraph 9 the answering deponent begs to submits that the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable and denied the allegation as levelled against the answering deponent. The answering deponent most respectfull begs to submit that as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules minimum qualifying service for Pensionary benefits is completion of 10 (Ten) years of continuous service but as per the office records, Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty joined service on 21.02.1981 and he last attended office on 23.08.1985. Hence, he was in service only for 4 years and 6 months. Secondly, Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty was dismissed from service on 15.05.1989 and on the dismissal of a Government servant from a service/post entails forfeiture of past service. As such, the claim of petitioner is not subsist and claimant of Shri Adhir Ranjan Chakraborty is not entitled to any retirement benefits under the provisions of law. Moreover, the claim of the Petitioner barred by limitation.”

¶34

Reading the aforesaid paragraphs, it is abundantly clear that

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

the petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service on 15.05.1989. It is further apparent that the petitioner has never lodged any complaint nor filed any F.I.R. before the competent authority to prove the alleged missing of her husband, and it was never officially recorded that the husband of the petitioner went missing.

¶37

That being so, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension benefits as claimed in the instant writ petition.

¶38

As such, this court finds no merit in the writ petition, and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶39

It is needless to clarify that in the event, any dues of the petitioner’s husband are pending for the period in service, the respondents shall release the same in accordance with law.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Namita Chakraborty v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namita Chakraborty v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zahurul Islam Vs Dharma Kanta Mili and Anr.

Sk. Mahammad Zakir Hussain Vs Dr Bijoya Choudhury IAS and Ors.

Parbati Basfor Vs the Union Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Mintu Kakoti Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Achur Uddin Fakir Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Dr Suman Paul Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.