Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010177782015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4666/2015 SMTI PAPORI BORAH BHUYAN W/O- LT. PRASANTA KR. BHUYAN, D/O- LT. RUPESWAR BORAH, PERMANENT R/O VILL.- RAJAHOWLIGAON, P.O.- KAROKAKATOLI, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, P.W.D., NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, DISPUR, GHY- 6, ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. NH WORKS ASSAM CHANDMARI GHY- 3. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. NAGAON N.H. DIVISION NAGAON ASSAM. 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AandE ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY- 29. 5:JITU BHUYAN S/O- SRI SUREN BHUYAN R/O- NO. 1 KARHOL GAON Page No.# 2/6 P.O.- MAJULI BANGAON P.S.- KAMALABARI DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM. 6:THE TREASURY OFFICER NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A BEGUM, MR.B K SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : MR.C BARUAH, MR. S K MEDHI (r-4),MR.Y S MANNAN,SC, AG,MR.B GOGOI(SC, FINANCE),SC, PWD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 17.06. 2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel appears for Accountant General, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel appears for PWD. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and other benefits payable to her on account of the services rendered by her late husband, Late Prasanta Kr. Bhuyan, who had rendered services under the PWD Department as a Junior Engineer and subsequently died in a road accident during his service period. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been receiving the family pension payable by the respondent authority; however, the Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) claimed by the petitioner has been rejected on the Page No.# 3/6 ground that the husband of the petitioner's services was not confirmed, although he had rendered more than 18 years of service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dolly Borpujari vs. State of Assam and Ors. passed in Writ Appeal No. 266 of 2006, in support of the petitioner’s claim. 4. The respondents have contested the matter by filing their affidavits, more particularly by the Accountant General’s Office, where at Paragraph-5 of the said affidavit it is stated that G.P.F. and Family Pension of the deceased Government servant has been finalized vide No. PF-14/FP/CW-44992/15-16/2695-97 dated 14.10.2015, and vide communication dated 18.11.2015, an FPPO No. 928314222937 was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that since the net qualifying service of the deceased Government servant, i.e. the late husband of the petitioner, is less than 20 years and not confirmed, as per rules, the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) is not admissible, however the same has been intimated to the Administrative Department, namely the PWD, Building and National Highways Department. 5. Mr. R. Dhar, the learned Standing Counsel for the PWD, submits that the Department has no objections to the claim of the petitioner; however the objections are raised by the Accountant General's Office. 6. The pleadings available on record have been carefully perused and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. This Court finds that the respondent, namely the Accountant General have Page No.# 4/6 raised the objections that, in terms of rule 136(2), the services rendered in respect of petitioner’s late husband was not confirmed, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for DCRG, as the qualifying services have not been completed. The qualifying services are prescribed under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 7. The judgment pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the appellant therein, who was denied pensionary benefits after rendering services under the Assam Official Language (Translation of Central Laws) Commission. By referring to the judgment of the Apex Court, the Division Bench interfered with the findings of the Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was not holding a substantive post on a permanent basis and was, therefore disqualified under Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, from receiving pension. It was held that the appellant therein was holding a post on substantive and permanent basis and, therefore the disqualification under Rule 31 would not apply to the services of the appellant. 8. Coming to the facts of the present proceeding, it is seen that there is no dispute that the petitioner’s late husband had rendered more than 18 years of service as a Junior Engineer, though his services were not confirmed. The family pension granted to the writ petitioner was under the Family Pension scheme as prescribed under Rule 142 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his argument that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner’s late husband had rendered services for more than 18 years and the non-confirmation of his Page No.# 5/6 service cannot be a hurdle in conferring the benefit of Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the legal heir of the Government servant, namely the writ petitioner. 9. The judgment of the Dolly Borpujari vs. State of Assam and Ors. rendered in Writ Appeal No. 266 of 2006, which was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not come to the aid of the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 31, which prescribes the qualifying service of the Government servant, the Governor has the power to relax any of the provisions thereof, subject to such application being made. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that he be permitted to file necessary application through the Administrative Department for relaxation of the conditions of Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 10. In that view of the matter, and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition stands closed, permitting the petitioner to file necessary applications through the Respondent No. 1, which is now re-designated as Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works (Building and National Highway) Department. 11. If any such application is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, along with the copy of this order being forwarded with the representation, the Office of the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works (Building and National Highway) Department will forthwith takes steps to forward the same for Page No.# 6/6 exemption as prescribed under the Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, before the appropriate Authority. Thereafter, the appropriate Authority will consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period 90 days from the date of receipt of such an application forwarded by the Commissioner and Special Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works (Building and National Highway) Department. 12. Accordingly, in terms of the above, this present writ petition stands disposed of. 13. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated. 14. Pending I.As, if any, are also dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant