Assam College Employees Act | Family Pension Available To Employees Retired/Deceased Before 2005, Subject To CPF Refund: Gauhati HC
The Gauhati High Court has held that pension and family pension under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 extend to employees who had retired or died prior to its commencement, and that denying such benefit on the ground of “retrospective” applicability is “an absurd proposition.”
Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, presiding over the case, observed, “There is no quarrel that the Act of 2005 itself provides for the grant of pension in respect of “employees” who had retired before the Act of 2005 came into force, and it also provides for family pension to the family of those “employees” who had expired before the Act of 2005 came into force. The issue of “retrospective” applicability of the Act of 2005, as found in the letter dated 03.03.2023, is an absurd proposition, since a reasoned perusal of the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 2005 would reveal that the facility of pension and/or family pension would apply to “employees” who had retired or expired prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2005, provided the Government share of CPF benefit received by such “employee” were refunded within the time frame given by the Act of 2005 itself.”
“It is thus evident that the provisions of the Act of 2005 sought to give relief to “employees” who had already retired/expired and therefore could not exercise the option to either avail or reject the benefits of provincialisation, when such an option was available to the “existing employees,” Justice Mazumdar added.
The petitioner had approached the Court challenging a communication issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department, by which her claim for family pension for the services rendered by her late husband as Lecturer was declined. Her husband had joined Debraj Roy College in 1963, served for 23 years, took voluntary retirement in 1987, and died in 2008. The petitioner claimed that family pension was admissible under the provisions of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 and subsequent amendments.
The State authorities, while rejecting the claim, took the stand that the Amendment Act of 2012 would not apply to the deceased employee and that no retrospective effect could be given to the law.
The Court held in its judgement that the authorities had relied on provisions which were not applicable to the petitioner's case. It noted that the authorities had failed to consider relevant facts and law and had instead referred to “irrelevant provisions of law,” warranting interference by the Court.
On the nature of pension, the Court observed, “It is a settled proposition that a pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace. It is a payment for the past services rendered.” It further noted that family pension is a social welfare measure to ensure that the family of the deceased employee does not suffer penury and that such provisions deserve liberal interpretation.
Taking note that the petitioner had refunded the Government's share of CPF and that, “time frame for such a refund had been extended up to October 2010 by the Amendment Act of 2010 and up to April 2021 by the Amendment Act of 2020. The case of the petitioner is covered by the extension granted by the amendment of 2020.”
The Court finally held, “This Court, having duly considered the entire gamut of the matter, finds the reasoning given in the letter dated 03.03.2023 under reference, not only to be irrational but to be bordering on perversity, insofar as it seeks to reject the claim of the petitioner for family pension. It rather appears to be an attempt to illegally deny the petitioner her entitlement to a family pension despite the lawful and legal service rendered by her deceased husband, Justice Mazumdar further held.
“Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to a family pension in accordance with the applicable provisions of law governing such pension. … on a misconceived notion, the petitioner has been denied her entitled pension. Such action of the authorities is antagonistic to law and strikes a body blow on the concept of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the court concluded.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was held entitled to family pension with effect from the date of death of her husband, with directions issued to the authorities to process the claim within specified timelines.
Case Name: Nizara Thakur v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/1418/2024