WA/48/2026 of FARHANA KHANAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS on 5 May 2026

1. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCAITON, ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY 06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCAITON ASSAM KAHILPARA GUWAHATI 19 4:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 5:THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS AND TREASURIES GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 700048 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER, SRIBHUMI P.O. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 78871

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Barua, Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. : Mr. A. Chaliha, Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

–B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

06.05.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. M. Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. R. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondents.

2. The appellant claims pension under the old pension scheme, governed by Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the “Pension Rules of 1969”). She is not satisfied with the limited benefits which she is currently receiving under the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, 2009, which is commonly referred to as ‘NPS’ and the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 14.01.2016 by which the provisional/extraordinary family pension has been extended to certain NPS-covered employees, who died in harness, for the purposes of mitigating any family hardship.

3. The husband of the appellant had responded to an advertisement issued sometimes in the year 1999 by the Secretary/Superintendent of Purahuria Senior Madrassa in Karimganj district and was placed at Serial No.2 in the select list prepared after the interview. However, only with the intervention of this Court, he stood appointed on 14.07.2005 and joined his duties on 16.07.2005. The records reveal that he served until he was transferred in the year 2012 to another Madrassa on his health grounds, which was closer to his home.

4. The husband of the appellant died in harness on 08.03.2014.

5. The school where the husband of the appellant was transferred was later amalgamated with Idgah High School.

6. Because of the husband of the appellant having joined after 01.02.2005, the cut-off date for New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, 2009, introduced by the State of Assam in line with Central Government’s NPS applicable to recruits on or after that date, his service was covered under the NPS.

7. Contributions were deducted from his salary.

8. The old Pension Rules of 1969 did not apply in the case of the late husband of the appellant. It further appears from the records as also from the impugned judgment that after his death, no retirement benefits were released to the appellant, but again with the intervention of the Court, admissible benefits under the NPS were released in her favour. There was no claim at that point of time by her for being considered for pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules of 1969.

9. The appellant had to approach this Court again for family pension under the Office Memorandum dated 14.01.2016, which she has been getting regularly from 2014 onwards. The claim of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents ought to be directed to consider the fact that she would be entitled to family pension and terminal benefits under the old Pension Rules of 1969 on the ground of delay in appointment of her late husband which was because of administrative faults and not attributable to the appointee. If the appointment had been made on time, her husband would have been covered under the old Pension Rules of 1969.

10. The case of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge at the motion stage itself, holding that it was not open for her to now claim for benefits under the Old Pension Rules of 1969 as it was never questioned by her earlier and that she had accepted the NPS benefits including the subsequent benefits which flowed from the Office Memorandum of 2016. The appellant, the learned Single Judge held, could not now raise the issue of her consideration for pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Rules of 1969.

11. We are in complete agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge.

12. There is no merit in this appeal.

13. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF

JUSTICE Comparing Assistant