Gauhati High Court
Smt Chandralekha Deka vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 12 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010024852025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/918/2025
SMT CHANDRALEKHA DEKA
W/O- LATE MATHURAMOHAN DEKA R/O. VILLAGE- BELBARI, MOUZA-
SARUKHETRI, P.O. BARKAPLA, PS -SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT BARPETA,
ASSAM, PIN-781307
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
4:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ASSAM
JURIPAR
SIX MILE
GUWAHATI-37
5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
Page No.# 2/11
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BARPETA ZILLA PARISHAD
AT BARPETA
P.O- BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM
PIN-781301
7:THE TREASURY OFFICER
BARPETA TREASURY
AT BARPETA
P.O- SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78800
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
12/11/2025 Heard Mr. M Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Konwar, learned Standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 & 6; Mr. S S Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 5; and Mr. B. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Accountant General, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting this petition, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for authorizing to her family pension and other pensionary benefits, on account of the services rendered by her deceased husband as a provincialised Panchayat employee. The petitioner has also prayed for authorising to her the life time arrears of Page No.# 3/11 pension receivable by her deceased husband.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner's husband was initially engaged as Secretary, Rauli Gaon Panchayat under Barpeta Zilla Parishad w.e.f. 14.11.1960. Thereafter, he was allowed to work in the same Gaon Panchayat as a Tax Collector/Road Mahurar on fixed pay basis. The services of the husband of the petitioner came to be provincialised w.e.f. 01.10.1991. The husband of the petitioner on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from his service w.e.f. 28.02.2001.
It is further projected that the husband of the petitioner pursued the matter of finalization of his pension and pensionary benefits, but before the matter could be taken to its logical conclusions, he passed away, on 02.10.2008.
After the death of her husband, the petitioner approached the authorities for releasing to her, family pension and other due pensionary benefits, she was entitled to on account of the services rendered by her husband. Accordingly, the authorities of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department vide order dated 25.04.2014 authorised a provisional pension to her husband for the period from 01.03.2001 to 28.02.2002.
A family pension proposal was also processed and submitted to the Director of Pension, Assam. The said proposal was, however, returned by the Director of Pensions, Assam, vide communication dated 29.08.2016, by observing that the husband of the petitioner did not complete 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service and his service was not confirmed. Accordingly, a fresh proposal was required to be submitted by the Administrative Department.
The petitioner, being aggrieved, has instituted the present proceeding.
4. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees(Provincialization) Act, 1999, has submitted that the term "date of appointment" has been defined in the said Act, to mean in relation to an employee the date on which, he/she had joined the service of the Panchayat. The learned counsel has further placed his reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the Page No.# 4/11 case of State of Assam & anr. v. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi and other analogous matters, vide judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, in WA No. 145/2009, and has contended that this Court, in the said decision, had held that the benefits of the provisions of the Act including those for pension and other retirement dues, would be available to the provincialized employees in service on or after 01.10.1991, on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date of their initial appointment.
5. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner's husband would be entitled to reckon the service rendered by him w.e.f. 14.11.1960 till the date of his superannuation on 28.02.2001, as his qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pension and pensionary benefits.
6. Mr. Islam, learned counsel, has further submitted that the stand as taken by the respondent authorities in the matter that the petitioner's husband would not be entitled to be authorized any pension and pensionary benefits on account of having less than 20 years of qualifying service is on the face of it perverse and in violation of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi(supra).
7. In the above premises, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner's husband was entitled to be authorized his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the service rendered by him w.e.f. 14.11.1960 till 28.02.2001, as qualifying service for pension. The petitioner's husband having already expired; Smt. Chandralekha Deka, his wife, would now be required to be authorized the pension and pensionary benefits along with the life-time arrears of the pension receivable by the petitioner's husband till the date of his death.
8. Mr. K Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, fairly admitted that the petitioner is entitled in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (Supra) to be authorized family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her husband as a provincialized Panchayat employee. However, he has submitted that the delay occasioning in instituting the present proceedings, disentitles the petitioner to claim arrears of family Page No.# 5/11 pension and pensionary benefits.
9. Mr. Konwar, submits that the present writ petition having been instituted after around 23 (twenty three) years, since the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim arrears for a period beyond 3 (three) years from the date of institution of the present proceedings.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record.
11. It is to be noted that the service particulars of the petitioner's husband, as noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute.
12. The petitioner's husband as noticed hereinabove, was initially appointed as a Secretary in Rauli Gaon Panchayat w.e.f. 1960 and he had joined his service on 14.11.1960. The service of the petitioner's husband was provincialized in terms of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialized) Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.10.1991. The petitioner's husband, thereafter, retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2001. The husband of the petitioner passed away, on 02.10.2008.
13. The provisions of Section 2(a) of the said Act of 1994, defines the term "appointed day" to mean, the date on which the said Act of 1999 came into force. The provisions of 2(b) of the said Act of 1999, defines the term "date of appointment" to mean, in relation to an employee, the date on which, he joined the service of the Panchayat. The provisions of 2(d) of the said Act of 1999, defines the term "employees" to mean a person in the employment of Panchayat against a regularly sanctioned post.
14. The Panchayat employees not being granted, the pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the provincialization of their service; proceedings came to be instituted before this Court which ultimately resulted in institution of a writ appeal being WA No. 145/2009 i.e. State of Assam & anr. v. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi. The said writ appeal was given a final consideration by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, along with other analogous matters.
Page No.# 6/11
15. The Division Bench of this Court, vide the judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, examined the various provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, and with regard to the term "date of appointment"; the Division Bench of this Court had concluded that the same indicates unerringly to be one vis-à-vis such employees, the date on which, he/she had joined the service of the Panchayat. It was further concluded by this Court that on a scrutiny of the provisions of the said Act of 1999, it was discernible that the term "appointed day" was provided to indicate a cut-off date for provincialization of the service of the existing employees while the term "date of appointment" was comprehended for the purpose of continuity of service of such employees on and from the date of their initial appointment to determine their entitlements under the legislation including the pension and other retirement benefits.
16. In view of the said conclusions; the Division Bench of this Court had vide the judgment & order, dated 24.03.2010, passed in WA No. 145/2009, held, as follows:
"........................ We are, therefore, of the considered view that the benefit of the provisions of the Act including those for pension and other retirement dues would be available to the provincialized employees in service on and after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date(s) of their initial appointments."
17. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi(supra), was carried upon appeal by the State Respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same came to be dismissed. The decision of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi(supra), settled the position with regard to the entitlement of the pension and other pensionary benefits to provincialized Panchayat employees and also the period reckonable for computation of such pension and pensionary benefits.
18. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, having laid down that the pension and other retirement dues would be available to the provincialized Panchayat employees in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the entry of their initial appointments; such prescription would mean the date Page No.# 7/11 of first entry into service by such an employee in a Panchayati Raj Institution(PRI). The Division Bench of this Court in the above-noted case, had not restricted the term "date of appointment", to mean, the date of such appointment of a provincialized Panchayat employee in a Panchayat against a regular sanctioned post and/or the date on which such employee was authorized a scale of pay with due increments.
19. The said position was accepted by the respondent authorities and the Pension and Public Grievance Department, vide Notification, dated 17.03.2011, had prescribed that the benefits of the Assam Panchayat Employees(Provincialization) Act, 1999, including those for pension and other retirement dues as applicable to the State Government employees, would be available to the provincialized Panchayat employees who were in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date of their initial appointments in the service of the Panchayat.
20. The term "initial appointment" as finding place in the said Notification, dated 17.03.2011, issued by the Pension and Public Grievance Department, Government of Assam, would refer to the term "date of appointment" finding mention in the said Act of 1999, to mean the date of first entry by the provincialized Panchayat employee in the service of a Panchayati Raj Institution(PRI). The Pension and Public Grievance Department, Government of Assam, had, thereafter, vide Notification, dated 22.12.2014, reiterated the said position.
21. As noticed hereinabove; the petitioner's husband had initially joined his service in the Panchayat as a Secretary on 14.11.1960. A conjoint reading of the conclusions and directions as contained in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (Supra), as well as the Notification, dated 17.03.2011, issued by the Pension and Public Grievance Department, Government of Assam; the qualifying service of the husband of the petitioner is now required to be so reckoned w.e.f. 14.11.1960 and not from any date pursuant thereto.
22. It is also to be noted that the contention of the original petitioner, herein, that he had joined the service of the Panchayat on 14.11.1960, has not been disputed by the respondents in the present proceeding.
Page No.# 8/11
23. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi(supra), having held that the benefit of the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialization) Act, 1999, including those stipulated therein for authorization of pension and other pensionary benefits would be available to the provincialized Panchayat employees in service on or after 01.10.1991 on the basis of the length of their service reckoned from the date of their initial appointments and the said position having been accepted and notified by the Pension and Public Grievance Department, Government of Assam, vide Notification, dated 17.03.2011; it was not open to the departmental authorities to draw conclusions contrary to the said position and thereby, deny to the petitioner's husband, herein, his pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner's husband by reckoning the date of his initial entry into the service of a Panchayati Raj Institution(PRI) w.e.f. 14.11.1960, had qualifying service of more than 20 years.
24. Accordingly, in view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's husband was entitled to be authorized his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning the service rendered by him in Secretary in Rauli Gaon Panchayat w.e.f. 14.11.1960 till the date of his superannuation on 28.02.2001, by considering the entire period of his qualifying service.
25. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive arrears of family pension, beyond a period of 3 (three) years, prior to filing of the present proceedings.
26. The said contention is being noticed only to be rejected. The facts as narrated, hereinabove, would reveal that the husband of the petitioner after his retirement had pursued finalisation of his pension and pensionary benefits, but the matter was not to its logical conclusion during his lifetime. Therefore, it is seen that the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the authorities. As there was a doubt with regard to entitlement of provincialised panchayat employees to receive pension and pensionary benefits and further, the period of service of such employees that would be reckonable for the purpose, it is seen that pension/family pension proposals in respect of such provincialised panchayat employees were Page No.# 9/11 not being processed and/or being processed in a selective manner. The said issue came to be laid to rest by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (Supra). The respondents after the decision of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (Supra) proceeded to issue an order dated 17.03.2011 holding that a provincialised panchayat employee in service on or after 01.10.1991 would be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits, on the basis of their length of service reckoned from the date of their initial appointment in service of the Panchayat.
27. Thereafter, it is seen that the pension proposal in respect of the husband of the petitioner was prepared and submitted to the Director of Pensions, Assam. The husband of the petitioner also was authorized a provisional pension vide order dated 25.04.2014, for the period from 01.03.2001 to 28.02.2002. The said proposal was, however, returned by the Director of Pensions, Assam, vide communication dated 29.08.2016, requiring the administrative department to submit a fresh proposal by meeting the objections raised. The Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development, Assam was, thereafter, required to submit fresh proposal. The petitioner, herein, is also found to be pursuing the matter with the authorities, but to no avail and it is under such circumstances that the petitioner had instituted the present proceedings, albeit with some delay.
28. In view of the facts as existing in the matter, this Court finds that after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi (Supra), it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to expeditiously process the pension proposal of the husband of the petitioner and release the dues computed to the petitioner, herein, which the respondents miserably failed. The present is a case of continuous wrong and in the facts and circumstances arising in the present proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that no laches being found on the part of the petitioner in pursuing her claim, she cannot be disentitled of the arrears of pension. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim arrears, stands rejected.
29. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court in the matter; the following directions are issued:
Page No.# 10/11 (1) The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, and the Director of Pension, Government of Assam, shall process the pension and pensionary benefits required to be authorized to the petitioner's husband Late Mathuramohan Deka by reckoning the period of service rendered by him w.e.f. 14.11.1960 till 28.02.2001, as his qualifying service for his pension.
(2) On such computation of pension being so made in respect of the service rendered by the petitioner's husband; the arrears so working out in the matter w.e.f. 01.03.2001 till the date of his death i.e. 02.10.2008, shall be released to his wife Smt. Chandralekha Deka, the petitioner, after deducting the provisional pension paid, if any.
The DCRG due, be also released after deducting provisional DCRD, if any paid.
(3) On computation of the pension required to be authorized to the petitioner's husband, the life-time arrears working out being released to the petitioner; the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, and the Director, Pension, Government of Assam, shall also finalize the family pension required to be authorized to Smt. Chandralekha Deka pursuant to the death of the petitioner's husband, herein, and release to her, the amount so working-out w.e.f. 03.10.2008.
(4) The above exercise now required to be undertaken by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, and Director, Pension, Government of Assam, shall be so initiated and completed with the issuance of the Pension Payment Order(PPO) to the petitioner, namely, Smt. Chandralekha Deka, in the manner indicated above, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(5) It is further provided that considering the inordinate delay occasioning in authorizing to the petitioner's husband his pension and pensionary benefits and the consequential family pension benefits to Smt. Chandralekha Deka, this Court further provides that the Pension Payment Order(PPO), if not issued within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the amount due not so released; the arrears working-out shall carry an interest at the rate Page No.# 11/11 of 6% per annum with effect from the date of conclusion of the period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
30. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant