MUSTT JUNUFA BIBI Vs. MUSTT PADMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. YS Mannan, learned counsel for the appellant Mustt Junufa Bibi. Also heard Mr. RC Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Mustt Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi, Ms. D Borah, learned counsel for the respondents in the Health Department of the Government of Assam, Mr. A Hassan, learned counsel for Accountant General, Assam, Ms. N Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents in the Education Department as well as Mr. J.K Goswami, learned additional senior Government Advocate for the respondents in the Pension Department. Further heard Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Dy.SGI for the authorities under the Union of India inasmuch as, in some of the matters where also the question referred is to be answered that the Union of India are respondents.

(2.) Junufa Bibi has instituted WA 160/2018 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 26/7/2017 in WP(C) No. 2182/2016. WP(C) No. 2182/2016 had been instituted by the respondent No. 1 Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi (hereinafter referred as Padma Begum) being aggrieved by the PPO No. 9011112044447 and GPO No. 11220444713 dtd. 30/9/2013 by which the appellant Junufa Bibi had been provided to be the beneficiary of the family pension in respect of the deceased Tarif Uddin Ahmed. The deceased Tarif Uddin Ahmed was an employee in the Health Department of the Government of Assam and was receiving the pension upon retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation till he died on 13/8/2015.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 Padma Begum was the first wife and the appellant Junufa Bibi was the third wife of the deceased Tarif Uddin Ahmed, although the respondent No. 1 Padma Begum is stated to have been living separately and there was also an order dtd. 28/7/1993 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Guwahati in FC.Crl.No.86/1993 for payment of maintenance to the respondent No. 1 Padma Begum.