Smti. Rina Khound Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PPG DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND AND REVENUE RECORDS HOROBALA PATH ULUBARI GHY- 7. 4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AandE ASSAM BELTOLA MAIDAMGAON GHY- 21.

¶11

5:THE ASSTT. ACCOUNT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT GENERAL AandE ASSAM BELTOLA MAIDAMGAON GHY- 21.

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM.

¶14

7:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM.

¶15

8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NORTH LAKHIMPUR REVENUE CIRCLE LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM.

¶16

9:NIRU HAZARIKA KHOUND W/O- LT. TILOK CH. KHOUND R/O- BUWALGURI WARD NO. 14 P.O.- KHELMATI P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B PADUN, MS. P BARMAN,MR. R SARMA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.G BAISHYAR4,5, MR. J HANDIQUE, SC, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GA, ASSAM(R1,2,3,6,7),SC, AG

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

17/02/2026

¶23

Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N Bordoloi, learned Standing counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 1; Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 6, 7 & 8 and Mr. C Baruah, learned Standing counsel, Accountant General (A&E),

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. None has appeared for the respondent No. 9.

¶26

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to a communication issued by the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam, projecting the petitioner, herein, to be the 2^nd wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound, retired Supervisory Kanango and intimating that the pension and pensionary benefits due in respect of the services of the deceased employee would now be authorized in favour of the 1^st wife, i.e., the respondent No. 9, herein.

¶27

3. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding has projected that she is the wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound, who had served as a Supervisory Kanango in the office of the Circle Officer, North Lakhimpur Revenue Circle, Lakhimpur. The husband of the petitioner, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from his services on 31.12.2011. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner passed on, on 26.02.2012. The petitioner and her two sons submitted requisite application before the competent authority for being issued with a legal heirship certificate. When the said application was pending before the competent authority, the respondent No. 9, herein, by projecting that she was the 1^st wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound, instituted a succession case before the Court of the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, which was registered as Misc. (Succ) Case No. 11/2012. The petitioner, herein and her two sons were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The petitioner, herein, along with her two sons submitted a written objection in the said Misc. case and contended that at the time of her marriage with Late Tilok Ch. Khound, he was unmarried.

¶28

4. The materials brought on record reveal that as consented to by the parties to the said succession case, the same was placed before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. As per the agreement arrived at between the parties to the said proceeding, the Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 08.05.2014, proceeded to dispose of the said succession case by directing that the respondent No. 9 and her son would get 50% of the retirement dues of Late Tilok Ch. Khound, while the remaining 50% would be so authorized to the petitioner, herein and her two sons. The directions as passed by the Permanent Lok

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

Adalat is, however, not under challenge in the proceedings.

¶31

5. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of the direction passed by the permanent Lok Adalat, some amount was so authorized to her. The petitioner, thereafter, projects that she had submitted an application for being authorized family pension in the matter. The respondent No. 9 had also submitted application for being authorized family pension due in respect of the services of Late Tilok Ch. Khound. The said applications as submitted was consolidated in a form of pension proposal and the same came to be forwarded to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam. On the said proposal being further processed by the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, a communication dated 13.05.2015 came to be issued to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur and therein, it was projected that the 2^nd marriage as contracted by Late Tilok Ch. Khound with the petitioner, herein, was not permissible as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, it was stipulated that clarification with regard to the 2^nd marriage contracted by the said deceased employee be intimated. It was also stipulated that the name of the petitioner, herein, being the 2^nd wife was not included in the Pension Payment Order that was under preparation. The communication further proceeds to indicate that the Pension Payment Order was being processed to be issued shortly in the name of the 1^st wife, i.e., the respondent No. 9, herein.

¶32

6. It is in the above background that the present writ petition has been instituted assailing the contentions made in the said communication dated 13.05.2015.

¶33

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶34

8. While the petitioner, herein, has projected that she is the only legally married wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound, such contention is also found to have been so taken by the petitioner in the proceedings of the said succession case. However, it is found that the said plea raised by the petitioner, herein, in the said succession case was not pressed and the issue involved, therein, was resolved by way of a compromise between the petitioner and her two sons on the one hand and the respondent No. 9 and her son on the other hand. Accordingly, the

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 08.05.2014 had directed for distribution of the retirement benefits receivable by Late Tilok Ch. Khound between the respondent No. 9 and her son and the petitioner and her two sons. The contention that the petitioner is the only legally married wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound is not found to have been determined in the proceedings of the succession case. The respondent No. 9 in the said succession case had made categorical statements to the effect that she was the 1^st wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound and this position in view of the compromise entered into between the parties before the permanent Lok Adalat in the proceedings of the said succession case is found to have been accepted by the petitioner, herein.

¶37

9. As to who is the 1^st wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound is not an issue which would be permissible to be so determined in the present proceedings by this Court, inasmuch as, the same would require examination of witnesses, which would be required to be so adduced by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 9.

¶38

10. The materials coming on record having indicated that on account of the earlier marriage solemnized between Late Tilok Ch. Khound and the respondent No. 9, she would be the 1^st wife of the late Government employee and accordingly, the processing of the pension in favour of the respondent No. 9 as the 1^st wife of the deceased Government employee in the considered view of this Court would not mandate an interference.

¶39

11. It is a settled position that in terms of the provisions of Section 143 of the Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969, family pension is to be authorized only to the eldest surviving widow. It is only on her death of the eldest surviving widow that it would be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. The term eldest has been stipulated to mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage.

¶40

12. In the present case there being no determination brought on record with regard to the factum as to between the petitioner and the respondent No. 9, who would be the 1^st wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound, considering the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in the succession case instituted by the respondent No. 9, it is to be construed that the respondent

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

No. 9 is the 1^st wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound. Accordingly, the challenge in the present proceedings presented to the communication dated 13.05.2015 would not mandate an interference from this Court.

¶43

13. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner, herein, to institute appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction to establish her claim that she is either the only legally married wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound and/or is the eldest wife of Late Tilok Ch. Khound. The petitioner is also at liberty to claim a share of the family pension on behalf of her 2^nd son Chandan Jyoti Khound during the period, after the death of the Government employee, when he was a minor. For the said purpose also appropriate proceedings would be permissible to be so instituted by the petitioner before the Court of Civil jurisdiction.

¶44

14. It is provided that in the event of institution of proceedings by the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted by this Court, the same would be considered by the Court concerned on its own merits, without being swayed by the conclusions drawn by this Court in the present order.

¶45

15. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Rina Khound v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Rina Khound v. the State of Assam and 8 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

Sri Prem Kumar Sarmah Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Samin Chandra Baro Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dwiju Gogoi and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Supriti Bhowmick Vs the Gauhati University and 2 Ors.

Lakshman Chandra Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pushpendu Chakrabarty Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.