Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010007092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/242/2025 PARUL TALUKDAR W/O- LATE PUTUL TALUKDAR, R/O-APRO COLONY, LATAKATA, BASISTHA, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781029 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICEN ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 4:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 5:ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (W) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION TRAINING Page No.# 2/4 APRO TRAINING SCHOOL JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MR SOHAING Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 12/11/2025 Heard Mr. J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner has instituted the present proceeding praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to authorize to her compassionate family pension in relation to the services rendered by her deceased husband for more than 38 (thirty eight) years under the respondent authorities. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner, late Pratul Ch. Talukdar @ Putul Talukdar was engaged as a part-time Sweeper by the Superintendent of Police (Communication) on 08.11.1985. It is further projected that the husband of the petitioner was subsequently engaged as a whole time casual employee on fixed pay basis, w.e.f. 13.06.1990. While the husband of the petitioner was continuing in his services, he died in harness on 23.05.2023. The service of the petitioner’s husband as a causal employee was not regularized during his service period before his death. 4. The petitioner by projecting that her husband having rendered more than 38 (thirty eight) years of continuous service, under the respondent authorities, the establishment of the respondent authorities, being a pensionable establishment, has claimed that she is entitled to be authorized family pension/compassionate family pension, as the case may be. Page No.# 3/4 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The materials available on record reveals that the husband of the petitioner, herein, was initially engaged as a part-time Sweeper w.e.f. 01.11.1985. Thereafter, he was engaged as a whole time casual employee w.e.f. 04.06.1990. The husband of the petitioner continued as a casual employee till the date of his death, which had occasioned on 23.05.2023. The service of the petitioner’s husband was found to have not been regularized during his lifetime. The petitioner’s husband for the service rendered by him on casual basis has been released his due wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the said fact. 7. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of Rule 153 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, has contended that the provisions thereof having also mandated for grant of gratuity to person covered by the said provision, the husband of the petitioner having rendered services for more than 38 (thirty eight) years, the petitioner, herein, would also be entitled to be extended with the gratuity on account of the services rendered by her husband for more than 38 (thirty eight) years under the respondent authorities. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das reported in 2020 (5) Gau LT 605 has contended that the service of the husband of the petitioner, herein, rendered on casual basis cannot be regularized. He submits that the husband of the petitioner was released with all requisite benefits flowing from the decision of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das (Supra). 9. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das (Supra), the services of the petitioner’s husband would not be permissible to be regularized. Further, the husband of the petitioner having died-in- harness on 23.05.2023, it would also not be permissible to direct the respondent authorities to regularize his services with effect from a date prior to 23.05.2023. The services of the petitioner’s husband not being regularized, he would not come under the purview of the Page No.# 4/4 provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and accordingly, the petitioner, herein, cannot be extended with the family pension/compassionate family pension. Accordingly, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for being authorized family pension/compassionate family pension stands rejected. 10. However, notwithstanding the conclusion drawn by this Court, hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, if entitled to claim gratuity under the provisions of Section 153 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 for the services rendered by her deceased husband, is granted liberty to approach the respondent authorities by way of filing a representation. The respondent authorities in the event of filing of any such representation by the petitioner, herein, claiming gratuity, shall examine the same in the light of the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and other applicable notifications, circulars etc. and pass a speaking order thereof within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the said representation. 11. With the above observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant