Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/7439/2025 of MUSST HALIMA KHATUN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS on 28 May 2026
GAHC010283492025 2026:GAU-AS:7509 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7439/2025 MUSST HALIMA KHATUN W/O. LATE AKTAR ZAMAN, R/O. VILL - LAOGAON, P.O. - SALMARI, P.S. - RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN -782002 VERSUS THE STATE
GAHC010283492025
2026:GAU-AS:7509
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7439/2025
MUSST HALIMA KHATUN
W/O. LATE AKTAR ZAMAN, R/O. VILL - LAOGAON, P.O. - SALMARI, P.S. - RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN -782002
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI- 781037.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NAGAON
ZILA PARISHAD
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782001.
4:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A AND E)
ASSAM
MAIDAMGAON
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
781029
5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BAGARIGURI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
DISTRICT- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN -782103.
6:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR
GHY - 06
K M
ASSAM.
7:MUSSTT UMME KULSUM
W/O. LATE AKTAR ZAMAN R/O.- PUB-SINGIMARI
P.O.- SINGIMARI
P.S.- RUPAHIHAT
DIST.- NAGAON PIN. -782125. ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C DAS, MR. M U MAHMUD,A JUBARIA,MR. H
RAHMAN,MR S HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. S K MEDHI(SC,AG A AND E,MR N Z
CHOUDHURY(R-7),S LASKAR(R-7),MR S ABDULLAH(R-7),MR M KHAN(R-7),MR. K
MIRA(R-7),MR. A R BHUYAN(R-7),SC, AG,SC, P AND R.D.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 29.05.2026
Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, the learned, senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7. Also hear Ms. M. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. K. Medhi for Accountant General. Mr. K. Konwar, the learned Additional Advocate General was also heard.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“to graciously admit this writ petition, call for the records, issue rule calling upon the respondents, why should not direction to the respondent authorities to release the family pensionary benefit in favour of the petitioner @ 2 and wife of the deceased employee as well as release the remaining part of the DCRG @ provisional pensionary benefit and kindly be disposed the representation and as such your lordships may pass the order or orders or any other orders deem fit and proper for the interest of justice and Pending disposal the aforesaid matter your Lordship’s pleased to pass an interim order or direction to the concern authority to release the family pension separately and remaining part of the DCRG amount in favour of the petitioner with any terms and condition and as such as Your Lordship’s may please to pass order or orders and any other suitable order/orders deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray”.
3. It is the common case of the parties that the DCRG benefit has already been paid to the entitled parties in pursuance of the earlier order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4016/2023. The order dated 02.08.2024, passed therein records that the present petitioner, being the second wife, and the respondent no. 7 herein/respondent no. 6 in the said writ petition, had staked their claims for family pension and the DCRG.
4. This Court, by the order dated 02.08.2024, had disposed of WP(C)
4016/2023 by directing that the case of the petitioner shall be governed by the provisions of paragraph 23 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Full Bench in WA No. 160/2018, namely, Musstt. Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt. Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi. The claim for distribution of family pension between the two contesting parties has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation. Upon a specific query being made, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any ground on which a fresh adjudication of the claims is required now.
5. The Hon’ble Full Bench, in the case of Musstt. Junufa Bibi (supra), had held that when a claim is made by the second wife alleging that the first wife is not appropriately maintaining the other entitled members, the remedy would be to claim maintenance in appropriate forum of law and not the remedy will a claim for direct payment of family pension by the State authorities to such persons. Since this Court has already held that the aforesaid paragraph would be applicable to the case of the petitioner, I do not see any reason to depart from the same, except to grant liberty to the petitioner herein to pray for appropriate relief from the appropriate forum of law by making a claim for maintenance.
6. In the present case, it is admitted that the compassionate family pension has not yet been released to any of the parties. Therefore, at this stage presumption of any grievance regarding non-maintenance by the recipient of the compassionate family pension with regard to the other entitled members would be premature. The learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that the scheme of the compassionate family pension itself provides a remedy for aggrieved parties, who are entitled to a compassionate family pension to approach the concerned department, which has not been done in the present case.
7. Accordingly, in my considered opinion this writ petition does not survive for adjudication, since the issue has already been adjudicated by an earlier order of this court between the same parties. However, the dismissal of this writ petition in its present form shall not be a bar for the petitioner herein to approach the appropriate forum of law or to raise any grievance before the appropriate authorities, if the compassionate family pensioner fails to maintain any entitled member of the family out of the said compassionate family pension.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to costs.
9. The interim order, if any, is vacated. The respondent authorities should be at liberty to disburse the compassionate family pension to the entitled pensioner in accordance with law and in terms of Full Bencher Judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant