DIPAMANI KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1, Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.5 and Mr. M.S. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

(2.) The petitioner is the second wife of Late Sahabuddin Ahmed. Her husband had died in a road accident on 18.07.2017, leaving behind the petitioner with her 12 (twelve) years old son. At the time of his death, the husband of the petitionerwas serving as Lat Mandal in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon (respondent no.3). The petitioner is aggrieved by non-sanctioning of pension and other pensionary benefits on the death of her husband and accordingly, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The case projected by the petitioner is that her husband, during his lifetime, was married to the respondent no.6. Out of the said marriage, he had 2 (two) children, a son of 20 years of age and a daughter of 14 years of age. It is projected that the respondent no.6 had estranged relationship with her husband and they were separated before marriage of the petitioner and she was residing in her parental house at village Gog under Kamrup (Rural) district. It is also projected that at the time of separation in the year 2004, her husband had paid a lumpsum maintenance amount to the respondent no.6. The petitioner relies on the marriage certificate dated 30.06.2004 solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. It is further projected that the name of the petitioner was entered into the service records of her husband, namely, Md. Sahabuddin Ahmed and the name of petitioner and her son which was furnished by the deceased husband were also entered in the relevant column of the employee data sheet at Sl. No.1 and 2 wherein the petitioner was referred to be the spouse and her son was mentioned as his son. After the death of husband, the petitioner had approached the respondent no.3, seeking sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits and as the matter could not be settled by the respondent no.3, the petitioner has approached this Court.