Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010224512021 2025:GAU-AS:2751 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7293/2021 BASANTI MAZUMDAR W/O LT NARAYAN CH MAZUMDAR, R/O TENGAHOLLA, PO BOKAJAN, DIST KARBI-ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 DIST KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM 3:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781029 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DIPHU KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 6:THE TREASURY OFFICER DIPHU KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM 7:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL KARBI-ANGLONG DISTRICT COUNCIL DIPHU ASSAM 8:THE HEAD MASTER BIBEKANANDA M.E SCHOLL BOKAJAN PO BOKAJAN DIST KARBI-ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, MR. B C DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MS. D D BARMAN,GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE,SC, KARBI ANGLONG,SC, AG BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 17.03.2025 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5, Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4; Mr. R. Ronghang, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 5 & 7; Ms. R.M. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.9. 2. The petitioner has prayed for grant of family pension on the ground that she is the widow of the deceased Narayan Chandra Mazumdar, who was a Page No.# 3/4 teacher of Vivekananda M.E. School, Bokajan, Karbi Anglong. Prior to arriving at a decision as to whether the school where the husband of the petitioner worked was a provincialized school and whether the husband of the petitioner was in a pensionable service, a few other questions have to be decided by this Court. Thus, this Court has asked specific particulars about the petitioner’s husband and the petitioner herself, to which the petitioner’s counsel has replied, which is recorded in the next paragraph. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was born on 21.01.1954 and had her first child with the deceased husband on 28.12.1970. The second child was thereafter born on 13.10.1972. He also submits that the petitioner married her husband prior to giving birth to her children. 4. The petitioner’s husband was an Assistant Teacher in the Vivekananda M.E. School from 08.06.1965 and he died on 05.06.1983. The present writ petition for grant of family pension was filed only on 21.12.2021. 5. The affidavit dated 21.12.2021 executed by the petitioner, which is a part of the present writ petition, shows that the petitioner was 58 years of age on 21.12.2021. In that event, the petitioner would have been 7 years of age when she got her first child on 28.12.1970. She would have been 9 years of age when she got her second child on 13.10.1972. In terms of the affidavit at page 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner would have been born in the year 1963 and not 1954. 6. The petitioner has not been able to produce any documents proving her marriage to her alleged deceased husband. Further, there is no family Page No.# 4/4 declaration made by the petitioner’s husband showing the petitioner to be the wife of a Government servant. All the above facts imply that the petitioner is not the wife of her alleged deceased husband. 7. A perusal of the death certificate of the petitioner’s husband shows that the petitioner’s alleged husband expired on 05.06.1983 and the same was registered only on 02.03.2004. Even to the naked eye, the different number ‘4’ in the death certificate are different. 8. As there are serious disputed questions of fact, this Court is not inclined to go into the claim of the petitioner that she is the wife of the deceased government husband. There is no birth certificate of the children of the petitioner in the writ petition. On considering all the above facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant