BLESS BAMON Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions, arising out of almost identical facts and involving common questions of law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether family pension and other retiral benefits of a deceased Government employee are payable to her/his children through their legal guardian when the widow/widower is alive, but does not claim such benefits, is the short question which falls for consideration in the two writ petitions.

(2.) MR. V. K. Jindal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the State -respondents, Mr. R. Debnath, the learned CGC appearing for the Accountant General, Meghalaya and Mr. S. Sen, the learned counsel for the private respondent in WP (C) No. 45 (SH) of 2005 have been heard at length.

(3.) TO simplify the matter, I shall first deal with the facts in WP (C) No. 45 (SH) of 2005, decide the same and thereafter apply the outcome thereto to the facts of WP (C) No. 255 (SH) of 2006. The material facts of the case in WP (C) No. 45 (SH) of 2005 are that the deceased, namely, Smti Meruna A Sangma, was during her lifetime serving as UDA in the Office of the District Family Welfare Bureau. Tura and died on 9. 7. 2001 and left behind certain securities and debts amounting to Rs. 78,300/- payable by her Office. The deceased is survived by her two minor children and her husband i. e. the respondent No. 6. The petitioner No. 1, who is the sister of the deceased, applied for and obtained Succession Certificate dated 13. 9. 2001 from the Court of the Addl. District Magistrate, Tura in connection with S/c Case No. 83 of 2001 to receive the debts and securities of the deceased. The petitioner also obtained Guardianship Certificate in respect of the minor children of the deceased i. e. the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 vide the order dated 20. 11. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner. The parties are governed by Garo customary law in matters of marriage, inheritance/succession, etc. As per this customary law, when the respondent No. 6 refused to accept the wife offered to him by the clan as replacement of the deceased, he stood released from the Akhing bondage whereupon the petitioner No. 1 took over the responsibility of looking after the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and became their guardian. It is on record that the respondent No. 6 did not contest the Guardianship Certificate proceeding initiated by the petitioner No. 1. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent No. 6 swore the affidavit dated 17. 3. 2003 (Annexure-10) declaring that he has been released from the Akhing bondage and has no connection with the family of the deceased; that the petitioner No. 1 is the sole custodian of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and that all the dues, debts and securities and the family pension of the deceased be paid to the petitioner No. 1, who has, as stated earlier, become the guardian of the minor children in terms of the Guardianship Certificate issued by the learned Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioner No. 1.