A Single Judge Bench of Justice Robin Phukan addressed a writ petition filed by a widow seeking family pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The court ruled that family pension could not be granted as the petitioner's husband’s service had not been provincialised before his death.

However, it directed the widow to submit an application to the Governor, requesting the invocation of powers under Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, to condone the deficiency.

Sandhyarani Das's husband, Sachindra Kr. Das, served as the Head Pandit at Bibekananda L.P. School in Karbi Anglong from January 1, 1969, until his death on July 12, 1992. Following his demise, Sandhyarani applied for a family pension but her application was denied.

Sandhyarani contended that her husband's colleagues had received similar benefits, and she was denied a pension solely because her husband passed away before the provincialisation of his service. Aggrieved by this disparity, she filed a writ petition seeking a family pension effective 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 further stated that Sandhyarani’s husband’s service was not covered under the provincialisation scheme as he had passed away before the cut-off date of January 1, 1995, stipulated in the relevant notifications.

Mr. H. Das, representing Sandhyarani, contended that her husband's service, spanning over two decades, was regular and duly documented in his service book. He argued that denying her family pension constituted discriminatory treatment, particularly when families of similarly situated teachers had been granted the benefit.

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.

Conversely, Mr. J. Chutia, representing the KAAC, contended that the Provincialisation Act, 1974, did not apply to Sandhyarani's claim since her husband's service had not been provincialised prior to his death. He clarified that the Act was extended to their district only in 2003, with provincialisation occurring under the notifications issued in 2003 and 2009.

He further argued that Sachindra Kr. Das's name was not included in either of the notifications. Therefore, he submitted that Sandhyarani was not entitled to a family pension.

The court first observed that while Sachindra Das's service spanned over 20 years, it did not meet the three conditions outlined under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Rule 31 stipulates that the employment must be under the government, substantive and permanent, and paid for by the government. Since Bibekananda L.P. School was provincialised only in 2003, the court concluded that these conditions were not satisfied.

The court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on the cases of Khagendra Chandra Dev Sarma and Mrs. Purnima Tamuli Phukan, stating that the facts in those cases were distinguishable. It clarified that Sachindra’s death before 1995 disqualified him from claiming the provincialisation benefits, which were extended only through the 2003 and 2009 notifications.

Lastly, the court acknowledged the potential applicability of Rule 67 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which grants the Governor the authority to condone deficiencies in service for pension purposes.

The court noted that a similar relief had been granted in Sabita Sutradha v. State of Assam [WP(C) No. 3786/2021]. In light of this, it directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Governor, seeking the invocation of Rule 67. As a result, the court disposed of the petition without awarding costs to either party.

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)