ARUNA SADHANIDER SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case notice of motion was issued on 1.10.99 and it was made returnable within four weeks as the matter is with regard to the right of a widow to get the retiral benefit of her husband. Thereafter Rule was issued on 27.04.2001. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed. No. record was produced by the State of Assam and on 29.11.2001 the matter was heard- in-part and two weeks time was granted to the learned Government Advocate to produce the record with a further direction that the widow shall be paid all the retiral benefits save and except Rupees one lakh thirtyfour thousand three hundred seventythree. This amount is stated to be misappropriated by the husband. Nothing was done.

(2.) The matter came up for hearing yesterday and it was heard-in-part and Shri B. Choudhury appeared and submitted that he has no instruction. To-day Smit. R.Chakravarty, learned Junior Government Advocate appears, but she does not have any instruction in this respect. This is a pitiable state of thing and it is happening in almost each and every case of the State of Assam. I have nothing to say in the matter as it is the look out of the State of Assam. But sometime because of the failure to produce records injustice is caused and that is, what we are concerned with.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are as follows : The husband of the petitioner Mahendra Saikia had joined on 7.12.73 as Sub Engineer in the office of the Execulive Engineer, Planning and Design Division, Guwahati. While in service he was transferred from place to place. In the month of January , 1995, the husband of the petitioner while posted at North- Lakhimpur he fell seriously ill and prayed for earned leave and during the period of his earned leave one Durlav Chandra Gogoi, Junior Engineer was allowed to hold the charge of the husband of the petitioner of the post which the husband of the petitioner held. The husband of the petitioner in the month of June/95 was taken to Madras for treatment. But he died of cancer and during the period of treatment the wife approached the authority for financial help/ medical reimbursement. But nothing was done and during the absence of the husband of the petitioner the Assistant Executive Engineer was incharge of the post held by him. That will be evident from Annexure-3 to the writ application and that is quoted below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_322_GAULT2_2002Html1.htm</FRM>