Rashmi Rekha Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

¶1

GAHC010037532021

¶2

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

¶3

PRINCIPAL SEAT

¶4

WP(C) No. 1482/2021

¶5

Smt. Rashmi Rekha Saikia, W/o Late Pradip Kumar Baruah, Resident of Vill-Rangagara Hujgaon, PO-Hoibargaon, PS-Nagaon Sadar, Dist.-Nagaon, Assam, Pin-782002.

¶6

…… Petitioner .

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6, Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam.

¶9

The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Pension & Public Grievances Department, Dispur, Guwahati-06, Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam.

¶10

The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19, Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam.

¶11

Deepjyoti Sarkar Digitally signed by Deepjyoti Sarkar Date: 2026.01.08 16:43:47 +05'30'

¶12

The District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar, Assam, PO-Sivasagar, Dist.-Sivasagar, Assam, Pin-785640.

¶13

The District Elementary Education Officer, Jorhat, Assam, PO-Jorhat, Dist.-Jorhat, Assam, Pin-785001.

¶14

The Director of Pension, Housefed Complex, Dispur, Guwahati-06, Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam.

¶15

The Accountant General (A&E), Maidamgaon, Beltola, PO-Beltola,

¶16

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶17

Page 1 of 42

¶18

Guwahati-29, Dist.-Kamrup (M), Assam.

¶19

The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, Dispur, Guwahati-06, Dist.-Kamrup(M), Assam.

¶20

…… Respondents .

¶21

For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Borah. ……Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Sharma, SC, Elem. Edu., Mr. G. Pegu, GA, Assam, Mr. C. Boruah, SC, AG, Mr. A. Chaliha, SC, Finance.

¶22

……Advocates.

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶25

Date of Hearing :- 16.10.2025, 13.11.2025 & 25.11.2025 Date on which judgment is reserved :- 15.12.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment :- 07.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of :- N/A the operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been :- Yes pronounced?

¶26

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶27

Page 2 of 42

¶28

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

¶29

Heard Mr. D Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5, Ms. K. Phukan, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 6, Mr. C. Boruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, appearing for the respondent No.7 and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

¶30

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondents to release the following:-

¶31

(i) Arrear pension/family pension;

¶32

(ii) Provisional Gratuity, along with interest,

¶33

(iii) Leave Encashment Benefit, along with interest etc.,

¶34

(iv) arrear ACPS w.e.f. 01.01.2011, along with interest acquired there upon (as per revised ROP),

¶35

as entitled to by the deceased husband of the petitioner, who had retired from his service on 31.12.2017, as an Inspecting Auditor in the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar, and died on 29.09.2019.

¶36

Background Facts:-

¶37

3. The background facts, leading to filing of this present petition, are briefly stated as under:-

¶38

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶39

Page 3 of 42

¶40

“The husband of the petitioner had joined as an Inspecting Auditor on 24.01.1994, in the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Golaghat, temporarily on ad-hoc basis. His appointment was extended from time to time (by order dated 18.06.1994, 24.03.1995, 04.12.1995) and by order dated 20.03.1997; in which it was reflected that the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been extended from 01.03.1996, till posts are filed up in a regular manner.

¶41

Lastly, the husband of the petitioner was transferred to the Office of the DEEO, Sivasagar and he retired from his service on 31.12.2017, on superannuation. After retirement, petitioner's husband had filed a representation before the DEEO, Sivasagar on 31.05.2018, for releasing his all retirement benefits. But, the same failed to evoke any response. As the pensionary and other retirement benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband had not been paid, he had instituted a writ proceeding, being W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, before this Court. Then this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2018, had directed the respondent authorities to release the provisional pension till finalization of monthly regular pension. As the order had not been complied with, one Cont. Case(C) No.248/2019, was also initiated. However, during the pendency of Cont. Case(C) No. 248/2019, the respondent authorities had released a sum of Rs.3,81,138/- as provisional pension w.e.f. January,

¶42

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶43

Page 4 of 42

¶44

2018, up to April, 2019, vide letter dated 24.05.2019. Then the contempt proceeding was closed. But, taking the plea of closing the Cont. Case(C) No. 248/2019, the respondent authorities again stopped the provisional pension without assigning any reason.

¶45

Thereafter, the deceased husband of the petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application vide. I.A.(C) Sl. No.13566/2019, but, before the said interlocutory application was registered and tagged with the W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, the W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018 was finally heard on 25.09.2019, and vide order dated 25.09.2019, the respondent authorities were directed to release all the admissible retirement benefits and pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner by observing about stopping of provisional pension after April, 2019.

¶46

But, without receiving any retirement benefits, the husband of the petitioner died on 29.09.2019, due to lung cancer disease and the same would not happen, if the deceased husband had received all pensionary dues in due time. During the lifetime, petitioner's deceased husband had only received his provisional pension up to April, 2019 and GPF and GIS deposits, but all other retirement benefits and regular monthly pension are yet to be received from the concerned respondent authorities.

¶47

Thereafter, the petitioner, through her counsel filed a representation on 01.09.2020, before the respondent

¶48

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶49

Page 5 of 42

¶50

authorities for releasing the family pension and all other admissible benefits, but till date the respondent authorities raised objections and had not been releasing any amount. Moreover, the provisional pension, which was paid up to the month of April, 2019 that also not been released by the respondent authorities after April, 2019 onwards. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by initiating the present proceeding.”

¶51

4. The respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the service of the petitioner's husband, Late Pradip Kumar Barua, has not yet been regularized by the Government, and a detail report to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, was filed vide letter No.EAC/Esstt/40/2019/111 dated 29/12/2020, as objection was raised by the office of the Accountant General, Assam vide letter dated 17/01/2019. It is also stated that the provisional pension has been released to the husband of the petitioner for the period from January, 2018 to April, 2019 by the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar, vide communication No.EE/SIV/ HC/ COP(C) 249/2019/2020/1138, dated 30th Oct, 2020. It is further stated in the said communication dated 30/10/2020, that the documents required to be submitted by the present petitioner has not been submitted to the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar. It is also stated that the admissible outstanding retirement benefit like DCRG, Leave Encashment Benefit, including provisional family pension, ACPS have not been

¶52

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶53

Page 6 of 42

¶54

released by the Government due to non-regularisation of the service of the petitioner's husband.

¶55

It is further stated that the cadre of post of Inspecting Auditor held by Late Pradip Kumar Baruah is a Gazetted post (Grade-II cadre), and that all sorts of benefit, including the pension as well as regularization etc. of Gazetted posts is processed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam Education Department. It is further stated that the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar on 15/09/2021, had released an arrear amount of Rs.7,48,494/- granted as provisional pension.

¶56

4.1. The respondent No.3 has filed an additional affidavit where in it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Inspecting Auditor on 12.01.1994, temporarily on ad-hoc basis for a period of 4(four) months only vide Memo No. EDS.STAT/143/93/7-A, dated 12.01.1994, and subsequently, the post was retained up to 29.06.1996, for 4(four) monthly basis by the DEE, Assam vide Memo No. and date as mentioned below:-

¶57

`DEE,` `Assam` `Order` `No.`	`Dated`	`Period` `Retention`	`of`
`EDS/STAT/143/93/50`	`18/06/1994`	`For another` `months`	`four`
`EDS/STAT/143/Pt-`	`24.03.1995`	`For another`	`four`
`I/77`		`months`
`EDS/STAT/143/93/Pt-`	`04.12.1995`	`Extended` `up`	`to`
`1/118`		`29.06.1996`

¶58

Thereafter, on 29.03.1997, the office of the DEE, Assam had issued another order, vide Memo No. EDS/STAT/143/Pt-I/144, whereby the

¶59

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶60

Page 7 of 42

¶61

term of appointment of Inspecting Auditors were extended from 01.03.1996, till the posts were filled up through regular manner. The petitioner retired from the post of Inspecting Auditor from the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Sivasagar on 31.12.2017. He died on 29.09.2019 before finalization of his pension matter.

¶62

It is also stated that the DEEO, Sivasagar vide letter No. EE/SIV/PEN/08(B)/17-18/2274, reported that all the pension papers along with the original service book in respect of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah were submitted to the office of the AG(A&E), Assam for finalization of his pension case. But the AG, Assam had raised objection that the date of regularization of service of Pradip Kumar Baruah was not mentioned/recorded in the Service Book and then returned the original Service Book, along with the pension papers vide letter dated 17.01.2019 to DEEO, Sivasagar.

¶63

It is also stated that as the post of Inspecting Auditor held by Late Pradip Kumar Baruah is a gazetted post (Grade-II cadre), and the issue of service regularization order, pension case etc. are to be processed in the Govt. of Assam level and hence the original Service Book and other family pension related papers/ documents as submitted by the DEEO, Sivasagar, was forwarded to the Govt. vide letter No. EAC/Esstt/40/2019/225, dated 26.11.2021, for taking necessary action as the incumbent concerned had already expired on 29.09.2019. It is also stated that vide letter under Memo No. EAC/Estt/40/2019/291, dated 29.08.2023, the regularization of service and finalization of pensionary benefits in respect of Late WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 8 of 42

¶64

Page 8 of 42

¶65

Pradip Kumar Baruah has already been communicated to the Govt. for necessary action. The Govt. has carefully examined the claim of the petitioner, W/O. Late Pradip Kumar Baruah, for payment of family pension as well as unpaid retirement benefits like GPF deposits, Provisional Gratuity, Leave Encashment benefits etc. and subsequently, the Department of School Education, Dispur, Assam sought consultation from the Administrative Reforms, Training, Pension & Public Grievance (ARTP&PG) Department, and the Finance Department, regarding the regularization of service of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah, to facilitate the finalization of pensionary benefits.

¶66

However, both the Departments regretted the proposal. In view of the above, the proposal for regularization of service of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah, retired Inspecting Auditor could not be considered. As communicated by Govt. vide its letter No. E- 276784/217, dated 28/11/2024.

¶67

4.2. The respondent No.7 i.e. the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam has filed its affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been stated that - after passing of the order dated 25.09.2019, in W.P No. 6896/2018, the Office of the AG, Assam vide letter No.Pen2/PRD/19/WP(C)6896/2018/2019-20/2610, dated 05.02.2020, informed the Director of Elementary Education, Assam that the pension case in respect of Sri Pradip Kumar Baruah, Inspecting Auditor is yet to be received by his Office and accordingly, requested the authority to forward the pension case in complete WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 9 of 42

¶68

Page 9 of 42

¶69

shape to his Office, at an early date. But, till today the department has not submitted the pension proposal.

¶70

It is also stated that the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam is no way involved with the grant of provisional pension to the retired employee, like as the deceased husband of the petitioner. It is the concerned department, under whom the retired employee was working, who has the authority to grant provisional pension and admissible retirement benefits. The Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam shall issue the final authority in the form of Pension Payment Order once the pension proposal is submitted before this office in complete shape. There is no willful delay or negligence on the part of the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam.

¶71

5. The respondent No. 8 has filed an affidavit in opposition wherein it had taken a stand that a proposal was received by the Finance Department from the School Education Department regarding the payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The said proposal of the Education Department was regretted by the Finance Department vide Office Note dated 14.11.2024, of the Under Secretary, as per the views of Administrative Reforms, Training, Pension and Public Grievances Department endorsement which states that …….. “there are no such rules in Assam Services (Pension) Rule, 1969 or Office Memorandum/ Notification regarding payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the employees under

¶72

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶73

Page 10 of 42

¶74

ad-hoc appointment unless their services are regularized."

¶75

6. The respondent No.2 had filed its affidavit in opposition and it has taken a stand that the Office of the Administrative Reform Training Pension & Public Grievance Department had received an E- File, referred by the Department of School Education vide ECF No. 276784, for approval in the matter of regularization of service period on ad-hoc basis in respect of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah, Inspecting Auditor towards finalization of pensionary benefit and to invoke Rule-31 (2nd Provision) read with Rule 235 of Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969, so as to make the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner pensionable and release of all pensionary benefits including family pension. Then the Department of School Education was advised to obtain the views of the Personal Department and the Finance Department since the matter of regularization of services does not come under the purview of ARTP&PG Department vide ECF No 435210, dated 24/01/2024.

¶76

7. The petitioner has filed her affidavit-in-reply against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3, wherein she stated that her husband, Late Pradip Kumar Baruah had continued his service as an Inspecting Auditor for long 23 years 11 months 7 days, on the basis of his ad-hoc appointment extension order dated 20.03.1997, wherein it was stated that in continuation of the office order dated 04.12.1995, their services has been extended from 01.03.1996, till the posts are filled up in a regular manner. Therefore, it is the duty on the part of the concerned respondent WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 11 of 42

¶77

Page 11 of 42

¶78

authorities/Government to regularize the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner.

¶79

It is also stated that by an order dated 23.06.2022, this Court had directed the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department to place the relevant order before this Court, whereby the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Assam can pass necessary order towards payment of family pension as well as unpaid retirement benefits etc. to the petitioner. Again, vide order dated 30.01.2023, this Court has directed the Elementary Education Department regarding compliance of the order dated 23.06.2022. Thereafter, also on 31.08.2023, this Court had directed to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department to apprise the Court about its decision to regularize the service of the late husband of the petitioner.

¶80

It is also stated that more than 5 years had already elapsed and without getting monthly family pension and other retirement benefits the petitioner had only received provisional family pension on the basis of the various orders passed in the instant case, at different points of time and the respondent authorities, till date, had not made any final decision about the regularization of service of the deceased husband of the petitioner, who held a Gazetted post of Inspecting Auditor on ad-hoc basis.

¶81

Further, it is stated that though the Administrative Reforms, Training, Pension & Public Grievance (ARTP & PG) Department and the Finance Department had regretted the proposal for regularisation of service of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah by enclosing WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 12 of 42

¶82

Page 12 of 42

¶83

the order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-A, Page-95 to the Affidavit), but in the said order dated 21.03.2025, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education there is no any explanation as to why both the Departments had regretted the proposal for regularization of service of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah to facilitate the finalisation of pensionary benefits. It is also stated that on the basis of the prayer made by deceased husband of the petitioner, in his W.P.(C) No.6896/2018, by order dated 25.09.2019 while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had already directed that- "let the respondent No.3, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam submit all the relevant documents and proposals to the respondent No.7, the Accountant general (A&E), Guwahati, Assam, as sought for, so that the petitioner can enjoy his pensionary and retiral benefits, which exercise shall be undertaken within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." But, without receiving regular monthly pension, the husband of the deponent died on 29.09.2019. One contempt petition vide Cont. Case (C) No.248/2019, was also filed by the deceased husband of the deponent during the pendency of W.P.(C) No.6896/2018, for noncompliance of the order dated 26.11.2018 and thereafter, provisional pension has been granted to him and since then the petitioner had received only provisional family pension till date as the Government has not regularized the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner till date. It is the duty of the Government/concerned respondent authorities to regularise the

¶84

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶85

Page 13 of 42

¶86

service of the deceased husband of the petitioner on the basis of his long continuous service of 23 years 11 months 7 days.

¶87

Further it is stated that in the instant petition, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court vide order dated 08.03.2021, had observed that- "It is disheartening to take note of that in the meantime, the husband of the petitioner Pradip died on 29.09.2019 due to illness and it is stated that adequate medical treatment also could not be given due to stoppage of the provisional pension to the beneficiary" and accordingly, directed the respondents Elementary Education Department as well as the Accountant General (A&E), Assam to file an affidavit by stating therein that why compensation should not be awarded to them, in the circumstance where the husband of the petitioner in whose favour the order for payment of provisional pension was made had in the meantime died. Thereafter, also it was observed by this Court on 21.02.2022, that the steps taken with regard to the issue of compensation should also be reflected in the affidavit by fixing the next date on 10.03.2022. But, the answering respondent as well as the other respondent till date not stated in their affidavits in a single word regarding the issue of payment of compensation as directed by the order dated 08.03.2021 and 21.02.2022, which facts goes to show that the concerned respondent authorities had always flouted the directions passed in this instant writ petition and also had not regularize the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner and had passed the order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-A, Page-95 to the affidavit) by stating that as both the departments had regretted

¶88

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶89

Page 14 of 42

¶90

the proposal as stated herein above. It is also stated that the matter of regularisation of service has unnecessarily been delayed for long 7 years, for which this Court may be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to pay interest as per provisions of Rule197-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶91

8. The petitioner has also filed her reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.2. It is stated that the deceased husband of the petitioner had served the Department as an Inspecting Auditor for last long 23 years 11 months 7 days and had retired from service on 31.12.2017. For releasing pensionary benefits petitioner’s deceased husband had filed W.P.(C) No.6896/2018, and the said writ petition was finally heard on 25.09.2019, and had directed to complete the whole exercise within 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order by the concerned respondents and the present respondent No.2 was also the respondent No.2 in the said W.P.(C) No.6896/2018. The husband of the petitioner died on 29.09.2019, immediately after passing this Court's order dated 25.09.2019 and at that time, he had received provisional pension only after filling a Contempt Case the said provisional pension was continued. Even, after his death the respondent authorities now and then stopped her provisional family pension, and this Court had issued directions for releasing provisional family pension continuously to the deponent while passing various orders for placing the records and other instructions regarding regularization of the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner. At present, even after more than 7 years, the matter

¶92

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶93

Page 15 of 42

¶94

remains unsolved. Though she had received monthly provisional family pension, the other benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. have not yet been released to her and it happened as the matter was the fault of the respondent authorities who had not finalized the proposal of regularization of the deceased husband of the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions.

¶95

9. The petitioner has also filed her reply to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No.8, wherein she stated that it is the duty of the Government to regularize the service rendered by her deceased husband and a fresh proposal should be sent to the Government after regularizing the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner. She also states that as per Annexure-K & L (page45 & 46) of the writ petition, financial upgradation was also approved to her deceased husband, along with others as per Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and hence the service of her deceased husband ought to have been regularized. It is also stated that though the respondent No.8, quoting and enclosing the note regarding regretting the proposal for pension and other admissible benefits, as there is no rules in Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 or office memorandum/notification as per views of ARTP&PG Department, but as per Office Memorandum, under Memo No. PPG(P)196/92/61 dated 06.09.2003, a person is eligible for pensionary benefits rendering 20 years of continuous service without being confirmed.

¶96

It is further stated that as per Office Memorandum, under memo No. PPG(P)7/2012/8, dated 21.06.2012, all Administrative WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 16 of 42

¶97

Page 16 of 42

¶98

Department/Heads of Department and Heads of offices of District shall issue provisional pension/provisional family pension and DCRG to all retired Government Employees of the State Government as admissible soon after their retirement till final PPO is issued by the Accountant General (A&E) Assam and Director of Pension, Assam. But, in the instant case though provisional family pension was granted to the deponent, but till date no DCRG has been granted to the petitioner for which direction may be issued for immediate release of DCRG amount, along with interest acquired thereupon on the basis of the prayer made by deponent in the instant writ petition. It is also stated that while she is going to file this affidavitin-reply, on 28.05.2025 she had received another copy of the affidavit-in-opposition from the Respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Pension & Public Grievances Department (Now ARTP & PG), Dispur, Guwahati-06, in which it was stated that there is one E-File vide ECF No. 276784 for approval in the matter of regularisation of service period on ad-hoc basis, in respect of the deceased husband of the petitioner, towards finalisation of pensionary benefits and to invoke Rule-31 (2nd Provision) read with Rule 235 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 to make the service rendered by the deceased husband of the petitioner pensionable. Therefore, the respondent No.8 in various earlier occasions, while the matter taken up by this Court had not make any statements regarding the aforesaid provisions of law for regularisation of service and had unnecessarily delayed the matter for long 7 years, for which this Court may be pleased to

¶99

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶100

Page 17 of 42

¶101

direct the concerned respondent authorities to pay interest as per provisions of Rule- 197-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶102

Submissions:-

¶103

10. Mr. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, narrating the background fact of the present petition, submits that present case portrays a dismal affair, that has been going on in the department of School Education and it also very poorly reflects the performance of the respondent departments in discharging its constitutional obligation.

¶104

10.1. Mr. Borah also submits that the deceased husband of the petitioner had joined as an Inspecting Auditor on 24.01.1994, in the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Golaghat, temporarily on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, his service was extended from time to time (by order dated 18.06.1994, 24.03.1995, 04.12.1995). Thereafter, vide order dated 20.03.1997; the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been extended from 01.03.1996 till posts are filed up in a regular manner. Lastly, her husband was transferred to the Office of the DEEO, Sivasagar and he retired on superannuation on 31.12.2017. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner had filed a representation before the DEEO, Sivasagar on 31.05.2018, for releasing his all retirement benefits. The representation, so filed, has failed to evoke any response.

¶105

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶106

Page 18 of 42

¶107

10.2. Then the husband of the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, to address his grievances. This Court, vide order dated 26.11.2018, directed the respondent authorities to release the provisional pension till finalization of monthly regular pension. On non-compliance of said direction, one contempt case being Cont. Case(C) No.248/2019, was instituted and during the pendency of Cont. Case(C) No. 248/2019, the respondent authorities had released a sum of Rs. 3,81,138/- as provisional pension w.e.f. January, 2018 up to April, 2019 vide letter dated 24.05.2019. When the contempt proceeding was closed the respondent authorities again stopped the provisional pension without assigning any reason.

¶108

10.3. Then an Interlocutory Application vide. I.A. (C) Sl. No.13566/2019, was filed which was registered and tagged with the W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, and this Court vide order dated 25.09.2019, directed the respondent authorities to release all admissible retirement benefits and pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner. Thereafter, without receiving any retirement benefits, the husband of the petitioner died on 29.09.2019, due to lung cancer which would not happened, if the deceased husband of the petitioner had received all pensionary dues in due time. He also submits that except provisional pension up to April, 2019 and GPF and GIS deposits, he received nothing. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a representation on 01.09.2020, before the respondent authorities for releasing the family pension and other benefits, but till date the respondent authorities have raised objections and had

¶109

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶110

Page 19 of 42

¶111

not been releasing any amount. Further, the provisional pension after April, 2019 onwards has also not been paid.

¶112

10.4. Referring to the stands taken by the respondent authorities in their respective affidavit in opposition, Mr. Borah submits that the main ground for not releasing the regular pension and other pensionary benefits, is non-regularisation of service of the late husband of the petitioner by the concerned department and the petitioner’s husband is no way responsible for the same and that he had rendered his service for long 23 years 11 months 7 days, since his date of appointment on 24.01.1994, till his retirement on 31.12.2017, and as such the ground for refusal to regularize the service of the late husband of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and is violative of the right guaranteed under Article 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶113

10.5. Mr. Borah has also drawn attention of this Court to one Office Memorandum, No. PPG (P) 196/92/61 Dated Dispur, the 6th September, 2003, to contend that a Govt. Servant rendering 20 years of continuous Service without being confirmed shall be eligible for pensionary benefits, but the respondent authorities had defied the same and compelled the petitioner to approach this Court repeatedly.

¶114

10.6. Under the given facts and circumstances, Mr. Borah submits that the respondent authorities, may be directed to release the arrear (provisional) pension/family pension, leave encashment benefits, gratuity, arrear ACPS w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (as per revised

¶115

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶116

Page 20 of 42

¶117

ROP) and all other admissible benefits including interest, as per provisions of Rule- 197-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, acquired in each head till the finalization of the regular monthly family pension, along with all due admissible benefits from 29.09.2019, for denial of constitutional right.

¶118

10.7. Mr. Borah has referred following decisions in support of his submission:-

¶119

(i) Balkishor Mody vs. Arun Kumar Singh and Ors. reported in (2001) 10 SCC 174;

¶120

(ii) State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10-2020 in LPA No. 762/2020 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad );

¶121

(iii) WP(C) No. 3252/2012 (Smti. Jonali Das vs. The State of Assam and Ors.);

¶122

(iv) W.P.(C) No. 5801/2013 (Parsing Puma @ Persingh Puma vs. The State of Assam & Ors.).

¶123

11. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 submits that as per order of this Court, dated 25.09.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, the proposal for regularization of service of the late husband of the petitioner had already been forwarded to the (ARTP & PG) Department and the

¶124

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶125

Page 21 of 42

¶126

Finance Department but, both department had regretted the proposal for regularisation of service of Late Pradip Kumar Baruah by enclosing the order dated 21.03.2025 and due to nonregularization of service of the petitioner, the regular pension and other retirement benefit could not be released to the petitioner.

¶127

12. On the other hand Mr. C. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 7, i.e. the Accountant General, Assam submits that once the pension proposal is received by the Office of the AG, the same will be granted as soon as practicable.

¶128

13. Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 6 submits that once the proposal is received by the respondent No.2 and 6, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶129

14. Mr. Chaliha, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.8, i.e. the Finance Department, submits that the proposal of the Education Department was regretted by the Finance Department as per the views of Administrative Reforms, Training, Pension and Public Grievances Department endorsement, wherein it has been stated that - “there are no such rules in Assam Services (Pension) Rule, 1969 or Office Memorandum/ Notification regarding payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the employees under ad-hoc appointment unless their services are regularized."

¶130

14.1. However, when the attention of Mr. Chaliha was drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Talsibhai

¶131

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶132

Page 22 of 42

¶133

Dhanjibhai Patel(supra), he submits that in view of said decision, there remains nothing to be submitted by him.

¶134

15. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. Also perused the Office Note of the Joint Secretary, dated 30.09.2024 of the department of ARTP & PG, Dispur and the Office Note dated 14.11.2024, of the Under Secretary of the Finance Department. Also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.

¶135

16. From the contentions being made in the respective pleadings of the parties and also from the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, following facts and circumstances emerges:-

¶136

(i) The deceased husband of the petitioner had joined as an Inspecting Auditor on 24.01.1994, in the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer, Golaghat, temporarily on ad-hoc basis.

¶137

(ii) His service was extended from time to time (by order dated 18.06.1994, 24.03.1995, 04.12.1995). Thereafter, vide order dated 20.03.1997; the service of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been extended from 01.03.1996, till the posts are filed up in a regular manner.

¶138

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶139

Page 23 of 42

¶140

(iii) Lastly, her husband was transferred to the Office of the DEEO, Sivasagar from where he retired on superannuation on 31.12.2017.

¶141

(iv) Though the husband of the petitioner had filed a representation before the DEEO, Sivasagar on 31.05.2018, for releasing his all retirement benefits, the same failed to evoke any response.

¶142

(v) Then the husband of the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, to address his grievances. Then this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2018, directed the respondent authorities to release the provisional pension, till finalization of monthly regular pension.

¶143

(vi) On non-compliance of said direction, Cont. Case(C) No.248/2019, was instituted and during the pendency of Cont. Case(C) No. 248/2019, the respondent authorities had released a sum of Rs. 3,81,138/- as provisional pension, w.e.f. January, 2018 up to April, 2019 vide letter dated 24.05.2019. When the contempt proceeding was closed the respondent authorities again stopped the provisional pension, without assigning any reason.

¶144

(vii) Then an Interlocutory Application vide. I.A. (C) Sl. No.13566/2019, was filed, which was registered and tagged with the W.P.(C) No. 6896/2018, and this Court vide order dated 25.09.2019, had directed the respondent authorities to release all the admissible

¶145

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶146

Page 24 of 42

¶147

retirement benefits and pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner.

¶148

(viii) Thereafter, without receiving any retirement benefits, the husband of the petitioner died on 29.09.2019, due to lung cancer, which would not happened, if her deceased husband had received all pensionary dues in due time.

¶149

(ix) Except provisional pension, up to April, 2019 and GPF and GIS deposits, he received nothing.

¶150

(x) The petitioner had filed a representation on 01.09.2020, before the respondent authorities for releasing the family pension and other benefits, but till date the respondent authorities raised objections and had not been releasing any amount and even the provisional pension after April, 2019 onwards has also not been paid.

¶151

(xi) While the relevant file was sent to the department of ARTP & PG, Dispur, then vide office Note of the Joint Secretary, dated 30.09.2024 the same was regretted by holding that “there are no such rules in Assam Services (Pension) Rule, 1969 or Office Memorandum/ Notification regarding payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the employees under ad-hoc appointment unless their services are regularized."

¶152

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶153

Page 25 of 42

¶154

(xii) Then vide office Note dated 14.11.2024, the Under Secretary of the Finance Department also regretted the same.

¶155

(xiii) The main ground for not releasing the regular pension and other pensionary benefits, is non-regularisation of service of the late husband of the petitioner by the concerned department.

¶156

(xiv) The petitioner’s husband is no way responsible for the same and that he had rendered his service for long 23 years 11 months 7 days, since his date of appointment on 24.01.1994, till his retirement on 31.12.2017, being an ad-hoc employee.

¶157

(xv) The ground for refusal to regularize the service of the late husband of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and is violative of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶158

17 . It is to be noted here that already there is an Office Memorandum issued by the Secretary to the Govt. Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department, which provides that a Govt. Servant rendering 20 years of continuous service without being confirmed shall be eligible for pensionary benefits, but the respondent authorities had defied the same and compelled the petitioner to approach this Court repeatedly. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein below:-

¶159

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶160

Page 26 of 42

¶161

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR : : GUWAHATI: :6.

¶162

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶163

No. PPG (P) 196/92/61 Dated Dispur, the 6th
September, 2003.

¶164

 In continuation of this Deptt. O.M. NO.
PPG. (P) 196/92/35 dated 12-9-96, it is
reiterated that said O.M. clearly lays down
that a Govt. Servant rendering 20 years of
continuous Service without being confirmed
shall be eligible for pensionary benefits. The
focus is on 20 years of continuous service.
After rendering 20 years of Service if the
Govt. servant is superannuated or incapacitated
or dead is not** root point. Any confusion in
this regard is against the spirit of the O.M.
referred to above. It is therefore, clarified
that pensionary benefit as contemplated in the
above O.M. shall be admissible to a Govt.
Servant who died after rendering 20 years of
Continuous Service. Other terms and conditions
for eligibility of Pension shall remain same as
usual.

¶165

Sd/- A. AHMED

¶166

Secretary to the Govt. Assam, Pension and Public Grievances Department.

¶167

17.1. This office memorandum was widely circulated amongst all the Departments of the Govt. including the Accountant General (A&E), Maidamgaon, Beltola, Guwahati-29 (respondent No.7).

¶168

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶169

Page 27 of 42

¶170

17.2. At the time of rejection of the claim of the petitioner, this OM, dated 06.09.2003, was in force. But, this OM has been ignored by the respondent authorities while considering the claim made by the petitioner.

¶171

17.3. It is a fact that subsequently, vide executive order dated 04.09.2025, in File No. – PPG-11012/9/2025/15(609016), the earlier OM dated 06.09.2003 and 12.09.1996, were withdrawn and it is provided in the said executive order that only those Government employees who have been appointed in a sanctioned regular post following due process of law and extant rules and have rendered atleast 20 years of continuance service without any brake, may be treated as deemed confirmed in service. Further, they shall be eligible for pension and other related benefits under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, if otherwise eligible under respective Pension Rule.

¶172

17.4. The aforementioned executive order is extracted herein below:-

¶173

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶174

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, TRAINING, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER

¶175

File No. -PPG-11012/9/2025/15(609016):
Subsequent to the issue of Executive Order No.
PPG- 11012/9/2025/14(609016), dated 04/09/2025
for withdrawal of the Office Memoranda issued
vide No. PPG(P)196/92/35 dated 12/09/1996 and

¶176

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶177

Page 28 of 42

¶178

No. PPG(P)196/92/61 dated 06/09/2003, on the
grounds of misinterpretations and complications
in implementation of various Pension Schemes
i.e. Old Pension Scheme and New Pension Scheme,
it is further clarified that only those
Government employees who have been appointed to
a sanctioned regular Post following due process
of Law and extant Rules and have rendered at
least 20 years of continuous service without any
break; may be treated as Deemed confirmed in
Service. Further, they shall be eligible for
pension and other related benefits under the
Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, if
otherwise eligible under respective Pension
Rule.

¶179

Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Administrative Reforms, Training, Pension and Public Grievances Department.

¶180

17.5. But, the respondent authorities have never considered the OM dated 06.09.2003 and also the OM dated 12.09.1996. Moreover, it is nobody’s case that the late husband of the petitioner was not appointed in a sanctioned regular post following due process of law and extant rules and it is also not in dispute that he had rendered 23 years 11 months 7 days continuous service.

¶181

17.6. In view of above, the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for non-regularisation of service of late husband of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal.

¶182

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶183

Page 29 of 42

¶184

18. It is to be noted here that while dealing with the issue of adhocism, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr, in Civil Appeal No(s). 8558 of 2018, held as under:-

¶185

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶186

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why

¶187

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶188

Page 30 of 42

¶189

similarly placed workers were treated
differently, and how the chosen course aligns
with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the
human consequences of prolonged insecurity is
not sentimentality. It is a constitutional
discipline that should inform every decision
affecting those who keep public offices
running.

¶190

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

¶191

(i) Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect 18 Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of

¶192

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶193

Page 31 of 42

¶194

the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher
and the appellants shall be entitled to
the subsequent increments in the pay
scale as per the pay grade. For
seniority and promotion, service shall
count from the date of regularization as
given above.

¶195

(ii) Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the
full difference between (a) the pay and
admissible allowances at the minimum of
the regular pay-level for the post from
time to time, and (b) the amounts
actually paid, for the period from
24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization /retirement/death, as the
case may be. Amounts already paid under
previous interim directions shall be so
adjusted. The net arrears shall be
released within three months and if in
default, the unpaid amount shall carry
compound interest at 6% per annum from
the date of default until payment.

¶196

(iii) Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal

¶197

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶198

Page 32 of 42

¶199

dues shall be paid within three months
of this Judgement.

¶200

(iv) Deceased appellants: In the case of
Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant
who has died during pendency, his/her
legal representatives on record shall be
paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to
the date of death, together with all
terminal/retiral dues recalculated
consistently with clause (i), within
three months of this Judgement.

¶201

(v) Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

¶202

18.1. It is to be noted here that in the case o f Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶203

“1. It is unfortunate that the State continued
to take the services of the respondent as an
ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to
contend that as the services rendered by the
respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to
pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be
permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong.

¶204

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶205

Page 33 of 42

¶206

To take the Services continuously for 30 years
and thereafter to contend that an employee who
has rendered 30 years continues service
shall not be eligible for pension is nothing
but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State
as such ought not to have taken such a stand.

¶207

2. In the present case, the High Court has not
committed any error in directing the State to
pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who
has retired after rendering more than 30 years
service.

¶208

3. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands
dismissed.”

¶209

18.2. Again in the case of Vijoy Kumar vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. ……of 2025 (Arising out of SLP© No…… of 2025 @ D.No. 39520/2014, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para No. 17 held as under:-

¶210

“17. There is no cavil that pension is not
discretion of the employer, but a valuable
right to property and can be denied only
through authority of law. When an authority is
vested with the discretion to grant pension
less than the full pension admissible under the
Pension Regulations, all procedural safeguards
in favour of the employee including prior
consultation must be strictly followed.”

¶211

18.3. In the case of D eokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that pension is a right and not a bounty, flowing from statutory WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 34 of 42

¶212

Page 34 of 42

¶213

rules. It was held that a Government servant falling within those rules was entitled to claim pension. It was also held that the grant of pension did not depend upon anyone's discretion. It has further been held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer. It was held that it was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer for an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It was held that it was not an incentive but a reward for past service.

¶214

18.4. Thereafter, in the case of D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 , where the Court expanded the concept of pension as a measure of socio-economic justice and part of the right to livelihood. Further in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that pension cannot be withheld in the absence of statutory authority, and executive instructions cannot override statutory rules. It has also been held that the right to property is not a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional right. The right to receive pension has been recognized as a right to property. A person cannot be denied his right to pension without the authority of law which is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.

¶215

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶216

Page 35 of 42

¶217

19. In the instant case, it appears that the pension and pensionary benefit has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of non-regularisation of service of the late husband of the petitioner by the concerned department. And indisputably, the husband of the petitioner was no way responsible for the same. He had rendered long 23 years 11 months 7 days of service, since his date of appointment on 24.01.1994, till his retirement on 31.12.2017. Being the post held by the late husband of the petitioner is a Gazetted post, (Grade-II Cadre) it was the responsibility of the Commissioner and Secretary of the Education Department, respondent No.1 to regularize the service of the late husband of the petitioner in accordance with relevant Rules prevailing at the relevant time, in view of the averment made by the respondent No.3, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam in the affidavit-in opposition at para No.8.

¶218

19.1. Now, to get rid of the mess committed by the respondent No.1, and also instead of complying with the direction issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 6896/2018, he has sent the file to other departments, including the ARTP&PG Department and further it appears from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 that the matter of regularization of service does not comes under the purview of the said department. Here the question that arises is if the matter does not comes under the purview of the ARTP&PG department, then why the file was sent to the said department?

¶219

19.2. Further, it appears that those departments also, without being alive to the situation, had acted like a post office and rejected WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 36 of 42

¶220

Page 36 of 42

¶221

the legitimate claim of the petitioner, despite specific direction of this Court in the order dated 25.09.2019, as if they are the appellate authority of the High Court. The high handed attitude of the functionaries of these departments deserves to be deprecated in strongest terms. There cannot be any good instance of carelessness of the respondent departments, like the present one.

¶222

20. Thus, having examined the grounds for rejection of claim of the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits of her late husband, and also the ground for non regularization of service of the late husband of the petitioner, in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors.(supra) and in Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the same failed to withstand the legal scrutiny.

¶223

21. In the result, this Court finds sufficient merit in the petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this Court the respondent No.1, i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department, (now School Education Department) is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order, and within one month thereafter, his pension proposal (complete in all respect) has to be forwarded to the respondent No.7 i.e. the Accountant General (A & E), Assam and on such proposal being received, the respondent No.7 shall release the pension and other pensionary benefits, which are legally due to the late husband of the petitioner, to the petitioner. This WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 37 of 42

¶224

Page 37 of 42

¶225

Court hope and trust that the assurance given by Mr. Baruah, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.7 shall be translated into action, within a period of next 15 days of receipt of the pension proposal.

¶226

22. Before parting with the record, this Court also considered the submission of Mr. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, to award compensation to the petitioner as for denial of constitutional right of the late husband of the petitioner and also for no fault of her late husband and for compelling her late husband to approach this Court on two occasions and the present petitioner for one occasion and they have been compelled to suffer for long seven years and for which the late husband of the petitioner could not be given proper treatment while he was suffering from lung cancer.

¶227

22.1. There appears to be substance in the contention, so made by Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and his submission appears to be in consonance with the provisions of Rule- 197-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Moreover, the decisions referred by him in this regard also supported his contention.

¶228

22.2. In the case of Bal Kishore Mody (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, for delayed release of the retiral benefit to the petitioner, had directed the respondents to pay interest @ 15% per annum, on the retiral benefits. Again in W P(C) No. 3252/2012 (Smti. Jonali Das vs. The State of Assam and Ors.) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has awarded 9% interest per annum, upon pensionary benefit of the petitioner on account of

¶229

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶230

Page 38 of 42

¶231

delayed payment. And in W.P.(C) No. 5801/2013 (Parsing Puma @ Persingh Puma vs. The State of Assam & Ors.) another co-ordinate Bench of this Court has awarded 12 % interest per annum for delayed payment of arrear amount of pension payable to the petitioner.

¶232

22.3. Accordingly, drawing premises from the illuminating discourse, and also to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to grant interest upon the pension and pensionery benefits of the late husband of the petitioner from the date of accrual of such benefit till its full payment. And in the given factual backdrop, this Court is inclined to quantify the same @9% per annum.

¶233

22.4. This matter does not end here. For full and final adjudication of the same, this Court is constrained to move forward further. As noticed herein above, the late husband of the petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.12.2017. Despite his representation, his pension and pensionary benefits have not been released. He was compelled to approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6896/2018. Then this Court had directed the respondents to release the pension and pensioner benefits vide order dated 26.11.2018. The respondents did not comply with that order for which contempt proceeding was initiated. And only during pendency of the contempt proceeding, some amount was released. On closure of the contempt proceeding, the provisional pension of the late husband of the petitioner was again stopped without assigning reason. Then one I.A. (C) No. 13566/2019 was filed which was tagged with the WP(C)

¶234

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶235

Page 39 of 42

¶236

No. 6896/2018 and then this Court had finally disposed of the said WP (C) No. 6896/2018, vide order dated 25.09.2019, directing the respondent authorities to release all the admissible retiral benefits and pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner. But, the husband of the petitioner died on 29.09.2019, due to lung cancer, without receiving any retirement benefits. It is the categorical contention of the petitioner that the same would not happened if the deceased husband had received all pensionary dues in time. Thereafter, the petitioner through her counsel filed a representation on 01.09.2020, before the respondent authorities for releasing the family pension and all other admissible benefits, but till date the respondent authorities raised objections and had not been releasing any amount. Moreover, the provisional pension which was paid up to the month of April, 2019 was also not been released by the respondent authorities after April, 2019 onwards. Only after interference of this Court, the same is being paid now.

¶237

22.5. The sequence of events, as narrated herein above, have a far reaching bearing upon various departments and its functionaries of the Government. It is well settled in the catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed in the forgoing para, that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer and that it was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer for an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch, and that it is not an incentive, but a reward for past service. It is equally well settled WP(C) 1482/2021 Page 40 of 42

¶238

Page 40 of 42

¶239

that it is not a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional right that has been recognized as a right to property and a person cannot be denied his right to pension without the authority of law, which is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.

¶240

22.6. The failure on the part of the respondent authorities and the respective departments and its functionaries to discharge its obligation towards a poor fellow, who died of lung cancer without proper treatment for non payment of pension and pensionery benefits reflects very poorly upon the functionaries of the respondent departments of the Government. It is difficult to believe that this is a welfare state, at least, the conduct of its functionaries lead us to such a painful state.

¶241

22.7. Under the given factual scenario, this Court is constrained to direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to constitute a High Level Committee, comprising of at least two Additional Chief Secretaries, to enquire into the matter of non regularization of service of the late husband of the petitioner and to fix responsibility for the same and also to enquire as to for whose fault the pension and pensionery benefit of the late husband of the petitioner could not be paid for long seven years, compelling late husband of the petitioner to die of lung cancer, without proper treatment for non - payment of pension and pensionery benefits, in spite of existence of OM dated 06.09.2023, which was prevalent at that time, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

¶242

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶243

Page 41 of 42

¶244

judgment and order. The Committee shall furnish its report within one month thereafter.

¶245

22.8. In the event of fixing the responsibility, upon any functionary, the amount of interest, which has been accrued upon the pension and pensionery benefit, shall be recovered from his salary. The action taken report, upon the report of enquiry, to be furnished by the said Committee shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court.

¶246

22.9. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment and order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, by a special messenger within one week from today. The petitioner shall also obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondents, as mentioned in para No.21 above.

¶247

23. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶248

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶249

Comparing Assistant

¶250

WP(C) 1482/2021

¶251

Page 42 of 42

Rashmi Rekha Saikia v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Rekha Saikia v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thanu Lahon Vs Kiritmoti Satnami and 2 Ors.

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. Vs Kalpana Devi and Anr.

Sheikh Abdullah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

On the Death of Ramela Khatun, Vs Legal Heirs of Tarubal Saha,Sri Jagadish Chandra Saha

Manju Kalita and 4 Ors. Vs Robita Barman@Robita Barman Kalita

On the Death of Pradip Chakraborty His Legal Heirs Arati Chakraborty and 2 Ors. Vs Shri Biprajit Chakraborty