IFTARA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-49
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on July 16,2018

Iftara Begum Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 5 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. K.M. Haloi, the learned legal Aid Counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned State Counsel appearing for all the respondents except respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 is represented by Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel, Principle Accountant General (A&E), Assam.
(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that her father was working as Unarmed Branch Constable in the Assam Police and from where he retired on 30.06.1996, upon attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he received his pensionary benefits as well as his monthly pension. Unfortunately, he expired on 27.11.2005 whereafter, family pension was paid and received by the mother of the petitioner i.e; the wife of the late Government employee. The petitioner's mother thereafter also expired on 24.05.2012 and therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for family pension before the respondent No. 4 requesting payment of family pension to her. The said application was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure-G). Thereafter, a series of communication took place between the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4 for clarifying the status of the writ petitioner including her physical condition.
(3.) Consequently, when the claim of the petitioner was referred to the respondent No. 5, but the respondent No. 5 vide communication dated 03.03.2015 rejected her claim for family pension on the ground that the entitlement for family pension by a handicapped son and daughter of a retired Government servant became admissible only with the insertion of Rule-3 - C vide the Assam Services (Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 2003 in the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (Pension Rules) vide notification dated 30.05.2003. Therefore, the said provision having only a prospective effect and considering the fact that the Government employee retired from service on 30.06.1996, the claim for disability person by the writ petitioner was rejected and her pension papers returned. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court through the present writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.