WRIT PETITION 6973/2013 on 31 October 1983

Conclusion

WP(C) 6973/2013BEFOREHON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANHeard Mr Z Mukit learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr S Hoque, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr R K Neog, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Assam.

Review petitioners i.e., the State seek review of the order dated 10-02-2014, passed in WP(C) No.6973 of 2013. Opposite party No.1 as the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the PWD authorities for payment of family pension. Her husband was a Grade IV Chowkidar in the PWD who died in harness on 31-10-1983. Being the widow, she was entitled to family pension but the same was not paid. Hence the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 10-02-2014. Relevant portion of the order dated 10-02-2014 reads as under :- This is a very unfortunate case where a widow, who lost her husband in the year1983, has to approach this Court in the year 2013, i.e. after 30 years, seekinga direction to the respondent authorities to pay family pension payable to her.

The petitioner’s husband, who was a Chowkidar (Grade-IV staff) in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Road), Dhubri Division, died in harness on 31st October, 1983. Admittedly the petitioner being the widow is entitled to family pension, who was, however, not informed by the authority concerned about her entitlement. The petitioner on coming to know from other sources about her entitlement filed an application for family pension in the year 2006 together with the deathcertificate. Unfortunately despite such approach made, till today the petitioner has not been paid a single penny towards the family pension, thereby putting the petitioner into grave financial hardship and depriving her from her legitimate dues.

The case of the petitioner was forwarded by the PWD to the Accountant General initially in the year 2006, which, however, was sent back in the same year to the PWD with request to remove the defects, which were again sent to the Accountant General’s office by the PWD in the year 2007 and thereafter, though it was againsent back, it has not been resubmitted by the PWD to the Accountant General’s office for sanction of the family pension due and payable to the petitioner.

The petitioner has been ignored may be because of the fact that she is the widowof a Grade-IV staff. Had her husband been an officer, she would have been paid and necessary steps would have been taken by the officers concerned on the guiseof brotherhood. This is really a very unfortunate state of affairs. The personswho are in most difficult situation are being deprived from their legitimate dues.

Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General has submitted that despite return of the proposal submitted by the PWD in the month of January, 2007 requesting them for resubmission by removing the defects, the same has not been resubmitted till date, though in December, 2013 another request was made forearly submission of the proposal, which, according to the learned counsel, is the reason for non consideration of the petitioner’s case for sanction of the family pension payable.

Mr. Bora, learned standing counsel, PWD, on the other hand, has submitted that the proposal was initially submitted in the year 2006, immediately after the petitioner filed the application seeking family pension and on submission of the death certificate of the petitioner’s husband, which, however, has been returned tothe PWD by the Accountant General with further information. It has also been submitted that the case of the petitioner would now be resubmitted to the Accountant General’s office immediately so that the petitioner is paid whatever amount i s due and payable.

The Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 stipulates the time period for finalizing the claim for family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. It imposes a duty on the head of the department to inform the person entitled to receive the family pension about the entitlement and to get the applicant from such person(s). Though such time limit has been fixed and the burden cast on the head of the department to inform the petitioner about her entitlement of family pension, after the death of her husband, nothing, however, has been done by the department, which has taken the plea that the case of the petitioner could not be processed due to late submission of the application seeking family pension in the year 2006. Such stand taken by the PWD is very unfortunate, uncalled for and against thevery concept of payment of family pension as well as the time limit framed under the 1969 Rules.

The petitioner though filed the application in the year 2006, unfortunately she has not been paid a single penny till date despite expiry of 8(eight) years from2006, from the date when she filed the application and almost 31(thirty one) years from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband in harness.

In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-

(i) The Chief Engineer, PW(Roads) Department shall resubmit the proposal within 15(fifteen) days from today to the Commissioner and Secretary PW(Roads) Department, Government of Assam, who shall within 1(one) week thereafter, sent the same to the Accountant General for sanction of the family pension alongwith all required information/particulars.

(ii) The Accountant General, Assam within 15(fifteen) days therefrom shall pass necessary order sanctioning the amount payable to the petitioner.

(iii) The amount found to be due and payable till date, shall be paid within 15(fifteen) days thereafter. Regular monthly payment shall thereafter, be made.

(iv) Since the petitioner has been illegally deprived from the enjoyment of her property, the Chief Engineer PW(Roads) Department shall pay interest @12% perannum from the date when the family pension was due and payable to the petitioner in the year 1983 till date. The amount so payable shall also be paid to the petitioner alongwith the amount directed to be paid, as aforesaid. —

Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel for the review petitioners submitsthat the writ Court did not take into consideration the provisions contained inRule 153(2) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which provides that members of work-charged establishment are not ordinarily entitled to any pension or gratuities.

On due consideration, this Court is of the view that by filing this review petition, the review petitioners actually want rehearing of the writ petition, which is not permissible in law. After perusing the averments made in the review petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the further view that filing of the review petition is not at all justified and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review petition.

Review petition is accordingly dismissed.