PRANATI ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr I Alom, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr N Dhar, learned counsel for respondent No. 7, Mr C Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4/AG, Assam and Mr N Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she is the legally married wife of Late Subhash Roy and their marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2000 and they lived together as husband and wife, till his death. Said Subhash Roy was working as Chief Warden in the office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Silchar, and retired from service on 30.6.2004 and died on 2.3.2013. During his lifetime, the petitioner was recorded as nominee in the Service Book as well as he has other documents, like postal savings bank account and she also stood as a guarantor in the bank, while her deceased husband took loan from the Bank. After the death of her husband, she had also withdrawn the retirement benefits, like GPF, GIS, DCRG etc. But in the year 2014, Smt Jaya Biswas, respondent No. 7 got the succession certificate (ex- parte) from the Court of learned District Judge, Karimganj, by misleading the Court on 8.5.2014, without impleading the petitioner as a necessary party in the said case, vide Misc (Succession) Case No. 2/2014, with an intention to obtain the pensionary benefit and knowing about the same, the petitioner filed a petition for revocation of succession of certificate and the same is pending.

(3.) In the meantime, respondent No. 7, on the basis of the succession certificate, filed a writ petition before this Court, claiming herself to be the first wife of Late Subhash Roy, which was registered as WP(C) No. 1605/2015, wherein petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 7, showing wrong postal address and due to the wrong address, petitioner did not receive any notice from the Court and the writ petition was decided ex-parte against the petitioner, directing the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department, to take a decision as to the entitlement of the respondent No. 7 to receive family pension, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks, with an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. After passing of the aforesaid order, the family pension availed by the petitioner was stopped and same was communicated to her for information and submission of objection. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner prayed before the authority for release of monthly family pension, which she was drawing since 2013. The respondent authority, as directed in the writ petition, asked both the parties to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (HQ) for hearing the dispute regarding entitlement of the family pension. Accordingly, she appeared and submitted all the documents. On 4.4.2017, the respondent No. 1, issued the letter No. HMB.96/2015/Pt/157 dated 4.4.2017, declaring that the respondent No. 7, Jaya Biswas, being the first wife of Late Subhash Roy, is entitled to receive pension, as per Rule 143 of Assam Pension Service Rules. The said order has now been challenged in this writ petition. The bone of contention of the petitioner that Late Subhash Roy nominated her as his wife, so she is entitled to receive family pension under Rule 136 (1) of Assam Pension Rules and the respondent No. 1 cannot rule out by an administrative order that petitioner is not entitled to pension and the said order is violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.04.2017.