WP(C)/322/2010 of SMTI AREFA BEGUM Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS on 15 November 2012

1. State of Meghalaya, represented by Commissioner andSecretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya.

2. The Under Secretary to the Govt.of Meghalaya, Finance Department (Pension Cell), Shillong.

3. General Manager,District Industries Centre,West Garo Hills District,Tura.

4. Tne Directorate of Industries,Meghalaya, Shillong.

5. The Accountant General,Meghalaya, Shillong.

: Respondents|

BEFORETHE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEL

For the petitioner

For the petitionerFor the respondents ©Date of HearingDate of Judgment and Order|

: Mr SR Sen, Sr AdvMr S Sen,Mr E Nongpbri,Advocates : Mr H Khnarmin, GAMr SC Shyam, CGC."15.11.7017."15.11.7017.

Heard Mr E Nongbri, the learned counsel for the petitioner.I have also heard Mr H Kharmih, the learned State counsel and Mr. SC}Shyam, the learned CGC, appearing for the Accountant General.

2. |Tnis is an unfortunate case. A Napless widow has been|forced to march from pillar to post for the last 7 years or so to receive the|elusive family pension of ner deceased Nusband, which she is otherwise|entitled to under tne law, as will be revealed hereafter, due to tne!indifference and callous attitude of the respondent authorities including|the Office of the Accountant General. This is a classic case of|bureaucratic insensitivities and red-tapism; a very simple matter has been converted into a complicated matter. In their anxiety to pass the buckupon each other, they sought for needless clarifications from each other|without even bothering to find out the correct legal position. Even a)cursory glance at Rule 48(1)(il) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Pension|Rules, 1983 will obviate the needless exercise of seeking clarification after|Clarification form each other, whicn, in turn, would nave enable tne}napiess widow to avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. I am)constrained to pass the aforesaid remarks with the hope that the.respondent authorities will, in future, be more careful and more)sympathetic to the plight of pensioners and their families left behind Dy|them and will not pusn them to come to this Court.

cmThe facts are undisputed. The petitioner is the widow of |late Azizur Rahman Mondal, who used to serve as Ex-Bee Keeping under|tne District Industries Centre (Division), Dakopgiri, Tura, he died in)harness on 22.07.2004. There is no dispute that the deceased husband of |the petitioenr left behind him his daughter namely Smti Nazima Sultana|

Begum and two sons namely Md. Shamim Arif Mondal and Md. Masum|Ahmed Mondal, who were born from his marriage with his first wife, late|Anzuara Begum, who had pre-deceased him on 26.06.2003. After the)death of her deceased husband, the said Nazima Sultana Begum, applied for Succession Certificate as well as Guardianship Certificate, before the|Addi. Deputy Commissioner, West Garo Hills Tura, who, after hearing the|parties, disposed of the matter on 14.12.2006 by appointing the petitioner|as the guardian of the said minor sons of the deceased born from hiswed-lock with his pre-deceased first wife. It was also ordered therein that|tne petitioner snould share the debts and securities of the deceased witn the daughter of his first wife at the ratio of 60/40. The petitioner|thereafterintimated.therespondentsabout.the.SuccessionCertificate/Guardiansnip Certificate No.39/2004 and requested them to)release all the pensionary benefits of the deceased in her name on the)strength of the order dated 14.12.2006. However, the respondent No.3)allowed the petitioner to draw the GPF, leave salary and gratuity, but)refused to sanction the family pension to her. At this stage, it may be)observed that the learned Addi. Deputy Commissioner snould not nave|allowed the division of the pensionary benefits between the petitioner and|tne daughter of the first wife of the deceased as it is admittedly againstthe Pension Rule. Anyway, since those benefits have already been paid to|and received by them, the matter cannot be agitated before this Court at)this stage, more so, when tnat Is not the issue raised in this writ petition. |As already indicated, there is no dispute among the rival parties that after|the death of the first wife of the deceased, he again married the)petitioner. Tne only probiem is that the name of the petitioner was never|

entered by him in his Service book as his nominee in terms of Form)No.1/7.

4Be that as it may, Rule 48 of the Meghalaya Civil Services|(Pension) Rules, deals with the order of payment of pension to the heirs|of the deceased employee. Rule 48 (1)(ili) of the Meghalaya Civil Services|(Pension) Rules, 1983 | see page 48 of the First Edition of tne said)Pension Rules| categorically provides that pension awarded under Rule)48 will not be payable to more than one member of an officer’s family at.the same time and that it will be admissible to the widow/widower andthereafter to the minor cnildren. This is clarified by the subsequent Rule|48(1)(iv) which says that in the event of remarriage or death of the)widow/widower, the pension will be granted to the minor children through|their natural guardian and in disputed cases, however, payments will be|made througn a legal guardian. A bare reading of the aforesaid two)provisions will plainly shows that it is the surviving widow and not anyone else wno Is entitled to payment of family pension of the Government.employee at the first instance and it is only in the event of the deatn orremarriage of the surviving widow that the question of payment of)pension to the minor children of the deceased will arise. In my judgment, the respondent autnorities nave completely lost site of tnese two)provisions and have in the process created unnecessary problems for the|petitioner. Pointless clarifications have been called for by both the)respondent autnorities from each otner from time to time, which, is)absolutely uncalled for. This resulted in denial of the Family pension to)the petitioner for over seven years. Family pension cannot be and should |not be withheld on such flimsy grounds. Proper application of mind would|nave easily dawned on the respondent authorities to understand tne exact|

legal position and release the family pension to the unfortunate widow|without unnecessary delay. The fact that the petitioner is the only)surviving widow of the deceased, who had none other, is not in dispute. |The illegality loomed large in the Succession/Guardianship Certificate|issued by the Addl Deputy Commissioner, Tura, should not have come in|tne way of the respondent authorities to sanction the family pension when|the entitlement of the petitioner thereto under the aforesaid legalprovision is staring on their face. Thus, the omission of the part of the)deceased to enter the name of the petitioner in his service book as his|nominee in accordance with Form No.1/7 snould not nave diverted theirfocus from the claim of the petitioner, which is demonstrably admissibleto her: they were missing the wood for the trees. They should have)sanctioned the family pension to the petitioner without any loss of time)once they found tnat there is no other surviving widow of the deceased|than her; the respondent authorities are, to say the least, taking hyper|tecnnical view of the matter, which is absolutely uncalled for. No other|serious and contentious issue survives for consideration.

5For the reasons stated in the forgoing, this writ petition.succeeds. The respondent authorities are therefore, directed to sanction|the family pension forthwith in favour of the petitioner and release the)same together with the arrears payable heretofore plus simple interest.calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date they became due. |Tne entire exercise snail be carried out within a period of two months)from tne date of this judgment.

JUDGE|

Capnira|