WP(C)/152/2024 of RIMA DUTTA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 5 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 06.08.2026

Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6, as well as Ms. A. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of benefit of the Compassionate Family Pension Scheme and, in the alternative, for appointment on compassionate ground.

3. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as Office-cum-Field Assistant vide order dated 05.02.2021 in the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and was posted at Fakiragram Electrical Sub-Division. He died in harness on 12.01.2023, leaving behind the petitioner and a minor son.

4. The petitioner, claims to have been subjected to financial distress due to the sudden demise of her husband, submitted an application seeking compassionate family pension.

5. The Assistant General Manager, Kokrajhar Electrical Division, forwarded the proposal for grant of compassionate family pension to the competent authority on 16.05.2023. However, the claim was not accepted on the ground that the deceased employee had rendered only 1 year, 11 months and 6 days of continuous service, which was short of the minimum qualifying service of two years prescribed under the Scheme.

6. Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the deceased employee was formally appointed on 05.02.2021, he had been rendering service since 1996 and therefore, such period ought have been taken into account while computing the qualifying service for the purpose of compassionate family pension. It is submitted that even if the period of regular service is considered from the date of formal appointment, the continuous period of service of the deceased employee fell short by only about 24 days to complete two years of continuous service. It is, therefore, urged that having regard to the object of the Scheme, the respondent authorities may be directed to adopt a lenient and compassionate approach and extend the benefit of compassionate family pension to the petitioner.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, submits that the Scheme notified on 03.08.2019 specifically provides that, to be eligible for compassionate family pension, the deceased employee must have completed a minimum of two years of continuous service without break before his death while in service. Since the petitioner's husband was appointed on 05.02.2021 and had died on 12.01.2023, he did not completed the prescribed qualifying service. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under the Scheme.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The Compassionate Family Pension Scheme notified by APDCL on 03.08.2019 provides that where an employee dies before attaining the age of superannuation, the family shall be entitled to family pension equivalent to 100% of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee up to the date of his deemed superannuation, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. One of the essential conditions is that the deceased employee must have completed a minimum of two years of continuous service without break before his death while in service.

10. It is not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner is governed by the aforesaid Scheme. It is also an admitted position that the deceased employee was appointed on 05.02.2021 and unfortunately had died on 12.01.2023. Thus, he had rendered only 1 year, 11 months and 6 days of continuous service which fell short of the prescribed qualifying service of 2 years by about 24 days.

11. As noted above, for an employee to qualify for and become entitled to compassionate family pension under the Scheme, he must have completed a minimum of two years of continuous service without break before his death while in service.

12. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased employee was appointed on 05.02.2021 and died on 12.01.2023. Thus, he had rendered only 1 year, 11 months and 6 days of continuous service and fell short of the prescribed minimum qualifying service of two years by about 24 days. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate family pension under the Compassionate Family Pension Scheme of APDCL.

13. In view of the above, this Court is unable to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant