Family Pension Denied Due To Non-Provincialisation Of Service Before Death; Gauhati HC Suggests To make Fresh Plea To Governor

Gauhati High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Robin Phukan disposed of a writ petition filed by a widow seeking family pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court held that family pension could not be granted since the petitioner's husband's service was not provincialised before his death. However, it directed the widow to file an application before the Governor, seeking to invoke his powers under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, and condone the deficiency. Background Sandhyarani Das's husband, Sachindra Kr. Das, served as Head Pandit at Bibekananda L.P. School in Karbi Anglong. He was appointed on January 1, 1969, and remained in service until his death on July 12, 1992. After his demise, Sandhyarani applied for family pension but was denied. She contended that her husband's colleagues had received the benefits, and she was denied pension only because her husband died before the provincialisation of his service. Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition seeking family pension from July 13, 1992. The respondent authorities, including the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (“KAAC”), argued that the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 (“Provincialisation Act, 1974”), was extended to their district only on August 1, 2003. They stated that her husband's service was not covered under the provincialisation scheme as he passed away before January 1, 1995 - the cut-off date for inclusion as per the notifications. Arguments Mr. H. Das, representing Sandhyarani, argued that her husband's service spanning over two decades was regular and duly recorded in his service book. He submitted that denying her family pension amounted to discriminatory treatment, especially when similarly situated teachers' families were granted the same. He further referred to Khagendra Chandra Dev Sarma v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3267/2006] and Mrs. Purnima Tamuli Phukan v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 2319/2011], where family pensions were granted in analogous situations. On the other hand, Mr. J. Chutia, representing KAAC, argued that the Provincialisation Act, 1974 was inapplicable to Sandhyarani's claim because her husband's service was not provincialised before his demise. He explained that the Act was extended to their district in 2003, and provincialisation only took place under the 2003 and 2009 notifications. He argued that Sachindra Kr. Das's name was not included in either of the notifications. Thus, he submitted that no family pension could be granted. Court's Reasoning The court first noted that while Sachindra Das' service spanned over 20 years, it did not fulfill the three conditions under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Rule 31 mandates that the employment be under the government, it be substantive and permanent, and be paid for by the government. Since Bibekananda L.P. School was provincialised only in 2003, the court held that these conditions were not met. The court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on Khagendra Chandra Dev Sarma and Mrs. Purnima Tamuli Phukan, holding that the facts in those cases were distinguishable. It explained that Sachindra's demise before 1995 disentitled him from claiming the provincialisation benefits that were extended through the 2003 and 2009 notifications. Lastly, the court acknowledged the potential applicability of Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which empowers the Governor to condone deficiencies in service for pension purposes. It noted that a similar relief was granted in Sabita Sutradha v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3786/2021]. In light of this, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation addressing the Governor and seeking invocation of Rule 67. Consequently, it disposed of the petition without awarding costs to either party. Decided on: 20-12-2024 Case No.: GHC 2024 WP(C) 2517 | Sandhyarani Das v. The State of Assam Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. H. Das Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. J. Chutia (KAAC), Mr. B. Kaushik (Education Elementary Department) ClickHere To ReadDownload The Order

Family Pension Denied Due To Non-Provincialisation Of Service Before Death; Gauhati HC Suggests To make Fresh Plea To Governor

Pranav Kumar

Tags