Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010142222021 2025:GAU-AS:17208 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4654/2021 SUMAIYA KHATUN AND ANR D/O LATE EUSUF ALI QUASEMI, A R/O VILL. KAZAIKATA PART-V, P.O. KAZAIKATA, P.S. BILASHIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. 2: FARHANA SULTANA W/O ABDUL KORIM SHEIKH A R/O VILL. KAZAIKATA PART-V PO. KAZAIKATA P.S. BILASHIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS Page No.# 2/5 GOALPARA DIST. CIRCLE DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI 29 6:THE TREASURY OFFICER GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 7:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 8:THE PRINCIPAL KATARIHARA TITLE MADRASSA P.O. JALESHWAR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN 783132 9:ROUSANARA BEGUM D/O ABU SHAMA SHEIKH VILL. BALADOBA P.O. KHELUWAPARA PART-IV DIST. BONGAIGAON PIN 783371 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, MR. S H ZAMAN,MR. M A I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, ,,MR. M S ALAM (R-8),MD. S ALOM (R-8),MR. A R SIKDAR (r-9),MR. M H TALUKDAR (r-9),MR R A AHMED (r-8,9),MR. N AHMED (r-8,9),SC, SEC. EDU.,SC, AG Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 09.12.2025 Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 7; Ms. P. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; Mr. C. Baruah, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 5; and Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.03.2019, whereby family pension has been sanctioned to the respondent No. 9; and also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent No. 4 to modify the order dated 07.03.2019, to the extent by including the name of the petitioner No. 1 as a recipient of pension being dependent daughter of deceased Government employee; and also prayed for issuing direction to the respondents to divide the pensionary benefit, received by the respondent No. 9, into two portion and provide one portion to the petitioner No. 1; and further prayed for issuing direction to the respondents to recover the amount of GPF, leave salary and other pensionary benefits granted to the respondent No. 9 and provide half of that amount to the petitioner No. 1. 3. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are sisters in relation and as the petitioner No. 1 is a minor, the petitioner No. 2 has represented the petitioner No. 1 before this Court. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that the father of the petitioners, namely, Eusuf Ali Quasemi, who was working Page No.# 4/5 as a Lecturer at Katarihara Title Madrassa, died in harness on 22.06.2018, and he married twice. Mr. Bhuyan also submits that at the time of the death of the father of the petitioners, he left behind ten children and his second wife i.e. the respondent No. 9, and that the respondent No. 9 and the petitioner No. 1 are the legal heirs, who are entitled to get compassionate family pension and other pensionary benefits. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that the petitioner No. 1, being the dependent unmarried daughter of the deceased employee, come within the meaning of family as prescribed under amended pension rule and thus, she is entitled for compassionate family pension. But, the respondent No. 4, vide impugned order dated 07.03.2019, had sanctioned compassionate family pension to the respondent No. 9 alone, who is now living separately and did not take care of the petitioner No. 1, who is pursuing studies in Bilasipara College, and that although the petitioners agitated the matter before the authorities and prayed for granting one portion of compassionate family pension to the petitioner No. 1, but the same failed to evoke any response and being aggrieved, they have approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. It is to be noted here that at the time of hearing, an effort for reconciliation between the parties were made and learned counsel for both the parties were directed to obtain instruction as to whether any amicable settlement could be arrived at and accordingly, on instruction, Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 submits that after much persuasion, the respondent No. 9 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000/- per month to the petitioner No. 1. 5. At this stage, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioner No. 1 is pursuing her studies and staying in hostel, the sum of Rs. 13,000/- is inadequate, and if the respondent No. 9 is agreeable to Page No.# 5/5 increase the same to some extent, then the petitioners will accept the same. 6. Though, Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 is agreeable to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- to the petitioners, yet on being insisted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also on asking by this Court, Mr. Sikdar submits that the amount can be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- per month. 7. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to close this petition by directing the respondent No. 9 to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the petitioner No. 1, and the said amount shall be transferred directly in the account of the petitioner No. 1 within a period of fortnight from the date of deposit of the pension in the account of the respondent No. 9. 8. Further, the arrear amount of the entitlement of the petitioner and also the other pensionary benefits shall also be divided between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 9 in equal parts. 9. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 10. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant