Disposed

Silpi Sikha Saikia and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2026WP(C)/6451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking family pension for the deceased employee's first wife and minor son, opposed by claims of a second wife and her son. Relying on the precedent that pension goes to the eldest surviving widow and is held in trust for other entitled members, the court directed the department to examine all claims and divide the pension if warranted.

What did the court decide?

Department directed to examine petitioners' claims vis-à-vis respondents 7 and 8 within 60 days and divide family pension among eligible members if both are widows.

Silpi Sikha Saikia and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010254842024

2026:GAU-AS:3764

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6451/2024

¶6

SILPI SIKHA SAIKIA AND ANR W/O- LT. PRANJAL HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BANMUKH DIHINGIA GAON, P.O.- JOYAPARA, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785640.

¶7

2: RAJ PROTIM HAZARIKA S/O- LT. PRANJAL HAZARIKA

¶8

TO BE REPRESENTED BY SMTI SILPI SIKHA SAIKIA (PETITIONER NO. 1)

¶9

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BANMUKH DIHINGIA GAON

¶10

P.O.- JOYAPARA

¶11

DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785640

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM TEXTILE AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶14

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PENSION DISPUR GUWAHATI

¶15

Page No.# 2/8

¶16

PIN- 781006 ASSAM. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR PIN- 781006 ASSAM. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022. 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781029. 6:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE CACHAR SILCHAR 788001. 7:SMTI DEBAJANI BORAH D/O- PABAN BORA VILL- DAHIKHUR DULAKAKHORIA P.O.- BAHANA P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785101. 8:SRI PRANJAY PRANJAL HAZARIKA (MINOR) S/O- LATE PRANJAL HAZARIKA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SMTI DEBAJANI BORAH

¶17

VILL- DAHIKHUR DULAKAKHORIA P.O.- BAHANA

Page No.# 3/8

P.S.- JORHAT

DIST.- JORHAT

ASSAM PIN- 785101

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BARUAH, MR. S J SARMAH,MR. J P MORE

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SERICULTURE, GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, AG

¶24

BEFORE

¶25

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶26

ORDER

¶27

12.03.2026

¶28

Heard Mr. A Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

2. The petitioners before this Court claiming for family pension in respect of the services rendered by late Pranjal Hazarika, who is stated to be the late husband of petitioner No. 1 and late father of petitioner No. 2. According the petitioners, the marriage of petitioner No 1 was solemnized with the late Pranjal Hazarika on 14.12.2014 and out of the said marriage, the petitioner No. 2 was born, who is about 8 years on the date of filing of the writ petition. During the subsistence of their marriage, the late husband married for a second time, namely the respondent No. 7.

¶30

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the employee data sheet, the name of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are reflected besides the name of the father and mother of late Pranjal Hazarika. A next of kin certificate has also been applied for and received by the petitioner No. 1 showing the name of the parents of late Pranjal Hazarika and the petitioner No. 1 and two sons, including petitioner No. 2 are reflected in the next of kin certificate. The petitioners represented before the authorities, however, no

¶31

Page No.# 4/8

¶32

effective orders have been passed on the claims made by the writ petitioners. 4. It is the claim of the petitioners that in spite of these particulars being available with the respondent authorities, they have not proceeded to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioners. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that in view of the objections raised by the private respondents No. 7 and 8, the family pensionary benefits have not been commenced.

¶33

5. Notices in the matter was issued as far back as 06.12.2024. Service on respondents No. 7 and 8 are shown to be complete by the Lawzima court's order dated 06.11.2025 but none is represented the respondents No. 7 & 8 when the matter is called up.

¶34

6. Mr. R. Dhar, learned State counsel submits that his instructions are awaited. He would like to file an affidavit in the matter.

¶35

7. The question of entitlement of pensionary benefits by the first wife vis-àvis the claims of the other wives is a controversy which gives confronting the Courts over and above.

¶36

8. In Rameshwari Devi Vs State of Bihar and Ors, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431, the Apex Court has clearly held that second wives are not entitled to pension. However, children born out of the marriage with the second wives, however, would be entitled to get pensionary benefits subject to the parameters specified in the pension Rules. This has been followed in several judgments by this Court.

¶37

9. A Full Bench of this Court in Junufa Bibi (Mustt) vs. Padma Begum (Mustt) & Ors. (W.A. No.160/2018) reported in 2023 (1) GLT (FB) 736 has laid down the law in respect of the claims towards family pension by second wife, this Court in the said Judgment as held under:

¶38

“………

¶39

Page No.# 5/8

¶40

As reading of Rule 143(1) goes to show that for the purpose of family pension a family would comprise of the relatives of the officer, which also includes the wife in case of a male officer. If the second or further wives of a male officer are acceptable and valid under the personal law governing the parties, we see no reason as to why such second or further wives would not be construed to be a wife of the male officer. 16. If the validity and acceptability of the marriage of a second wife or further wives where parties are governed by Mohammedan Law would be determined by the personal laws of the parties, and the personal laws provide for the validity and acceptability of such marriage, the second wife or the further wives where parties are governed by Mohammedan Law, would have to be construed to be also the family members of the deceased employee and therefore, under Rule 143(1) of the Pension Rules of 1969 be entitled to the benefits of a family pension.

¶41

But a further question remains as to whether being entitled to the benefits of a family pension would also necessarily mean that the State Authorities providing for a family pension would have to pay or apportion and pay the family pension to the second and further wives of a deceased employee separately where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law.

¶42

For the purpose, we look into the provisions of Note 1 to Rule 143(ii) of the Pension Rules of 1969. A reading of Rule 143 (i) of the Pension Rules of 1969 makes it discernable that the wife in case of a male officer would be included as a family for the purpose of the Rules and a marriage for the purpose of pensionery benefits to the spouse of a retired official shall mean a marriage before or after retirement. Note 1 to Rule 143 (ii) provides that in cases where there are two or more widows pension will be payable to the eldest surviving widow and on her death, it will be payable to the next surviving widow and the term eldest would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. Rule 143 (iii) further provides that the pension so awarded under Rule 143 will not be payable to more than one member of the officer’s family at the same time.

¶43

A conjoint reading of Note 1 to Rule 143 (ii) and Rule 143 (iii) of the Pension Rules of 1969 makes it explicit and unambiguous that the family pension would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widow in the event of there being two or more

¶44

Page No.# 6/8

¶45

widows and further that even if there are minor children who may also be entitled to the benefits of the family pension, the pension would be paid to only one member of the family at the same time, where at first instance it would be paid to the eldest of the surviving widow and thereafter, on her death to the next surviving widow, if any and in its absence to the minor children.

¶46

As a corollary to the provisions of the Rule 143 (iii) of the Pension Rules of 1969, Note 1 to Rule 143 (ii) would have to be read to mean that the family pension would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widows in the event there are two or more widows, and thereafter, on her death it would be payable to the next surviving widow, if any and thereafter, to the minor children if the occasion arises.

¶47

In the circumstance, the concept of a validity and acceptability of a second marriage where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law and the consequential entitlement to the benefits of a family pension and the concept to whom the family pension would be payable under the Pension Rules of 1969 are held to be two separate and unrelated concepts and the implication of the concept of a validity and acceptability of a second marriage or further marriages where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law would have no bearing on the concept to whom the family pension is payable under the Pension Rules of 1969. It is held that irrespective of the validity and acceptability of a second marriage or further marriages where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law, the family pension under Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969 would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widow, which would also be applicable for a family pension where the parties are governed by the principles of Mohammedan Law, and where there may be a validity and acceptability of the second wife or further wives in respect of a deceased Mohammedan employee.

¶48

We further hold that the family pension being payable to the eldest of the surviving widow or wife would not mean that the entire family pension so payable would be the personal property of the eldest of the surviving widow or wife and the family pension so payable would be held by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife as a trustee for all such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969.

¶49

Page No.# 7/8

¶50

We also provide that in the event any such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969, including the second or further wives, in a case where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law, are not appropriately maintained by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife to whom the pension would be paid, the remedy thereof would be to make a claim for maintenance in the appropriate forum under the law and not a claim for a payment of the family pension by the State authorities directly to such persons. But however, if in a given case the State authorities on their own volition are of the view that under an acceptable circumstance the authorities are agreeable or required to pay the pension separately to any such member of a family of a deceased employee, this judgment may not be construed to be an absolute bar on such separate payment.”

¶51

10. The department is to look into the grievances and pass appropriate orders

¶52

th in the manner provided. In the terms of the amendments brought by 9 of August 2018 to the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, it is provided that in case where there are 2 or more family members, minor son, unmarried dependent daughters, etc. present at the death of the widow/widower, the family pension should be divided to the eldest eligible member who will divide it equally amongst other eligible members. This however, is the process required to be adopted in cases where there are 2 or more family members present at the time of the death of the widow or widower i.e. after the family pension benefits have already been conferred to the widow or widower of the government employee. 11. However, this policy has also been adopted by this Court in the Full Bench Judgment, whereby such claims by other family members who claim to be family members of the government servant, will have to be given their share of pension by the widow/widower. In view of the law laid down in the full bench, this Court proceeds to dispose of the writ petition without waiting for the counter affidavit to be filed by the department

¶53

Page No.# 8/8

¶54

12. The department will therefore examine the case of the petitioners vis-à-vis the claims of respondents No. 7 and 8 and if there are any materials available to suggest that respondent No. 7 is also a wife/widow of late Pranjal Hazarika, then the family pension should be divided in terms of the directions mentioned hereinabove.

¶55

13. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. The directions be carried out within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Comparing Assistant

Silpi Sikha Saikia and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Silpi Sikha Saikia and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gazi Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bijoy Rabha Vs Bharat Kumar Vaishnav and Ors.

Sri Anis Rasul Mazumder Vs the State of Assam

Himadri Shankar Nath and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S. Raitani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Shri Anuj Deka Vs the State of Assam