AYATUN NESSA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting if not innovative question has arisen for decision in the present case in the following facts.

(2.) THE husband of the writ petitioner who was a Constable in the Assam Police retired on medical ground on 17.2.1958 and thereafter, lived together as the husband and wife till he died on 25.1.2000. After retirement on medical ground in the year 1957, the petitioner's husband received his pension and after his death on 25.1.2000, a claim for family pension having been raised by the wife, the same was answered against her by the officer of the Accountant -General. The aforesaid refusal to grant family pension is embodied in the communications dated 9.10.2001 and 9.1.2002. The ground of such refusal appears to be that as the validity of a marriage after retirement of an incumbent for purposes of family pension had been recognized by the amendment to the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 made with effect from 18.1.1995, the petitioner would not be entitled to family pension as the marriage of the petitioner had taken place prior to the amendment of the Pension Rules. Aggrieved, the instant recourse to the writ remedy has been made by the writ petitioner.

(3.) DR . Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment to the Pension Rules with effect from 18.1.1995, by which family pension has been made payable in respect of the marriages before and after the retirement of the concerned incumbent, must receive a liberal interpretation in the hands of the Courts in view of the beneficial nature of the legislation. That apart, it has been contended, on behalf of the petitioner, that the persons eligible to get family pension constitute one homogenous class and the impugned decision amounts to hostile discrimination between persons who had got married before and after the amendment to the Rules made in the year 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the amendment to the Rules merely obliterates the earlier restrictions in the matter of grant of family pension and the aforesaid amendment, at best, can be understood to be fixing the time with effect from which family pension is to be allowed to a person entitled. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Nakara v. Union of India, reported in : AIR 1983 SC 130. Further reliance has also been placed on a unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Nikunja Mohan Choudhury v. Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj.