Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010073862025 2025:GAU-AS:14729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2011/2025 MISS KATRINA BORUAH D/O LATE MADHURJYA BORUAH, R/O JERAI CHAKALIBHARIA GAON, P.O.- PANITOLA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786183, REPRESENTED BY HER DULY APPOINTED LEGAL GUARDIAN, NAMELY SMTI CHANDRAMA BORUAH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SRI PRANJAL BORUAH, R/O DINJAN MILITARY STATION, QUARTER NO. T-5/5, SECTOR-B, P.O.- DINJAN, P.S.- CHABUA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786183 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIBRUGARH WATER RESOURCES DIVISION JALASAMPAD BHABAN PALTAN BAZAR MAIJAN ROAD P.O.-JALAN BAZAR DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786005 4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM MAIDAMGAON Page No.# 2/5 BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 5:SMTI PROHELIKA BORUAH W/O LATE MADHURJYA BORUAH THROUGH THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL DIBRUGAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SAILENDRA DEKA, MS L RONGPIPI,MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. J PATOWARY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WATER RESOURCE, MR R ISLAM (LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-5),SC, AG BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 31.10.2025 Heard Mr. J Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Saikia, learned Standing counsel, Water Resource Department as well as Mr. R Islam, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioner, a minor child aged about 8 years, through her court-appointed guardian, seeking release of provisional family pension w.e.f. 10.09.2024, consequent upon the death of her father, late Madhurja Boruah, a Government employee, who died in service while working as Section Assistant in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Dibrugarh, Assam, under the apprehension that her mother/respondent No. 5, who is presently in judicial custody facing trial for the alleged murder of her husband may not issue the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) for disbursement of the provisional family pension. 3. The facts of the case are not in serious dispute. The father of the petitioner was murdered, for which an initial FIR was lodged before the Chabua Police Station by the respondent No. 5, alleging that some unknown miscreants had killed her husband. Page No.# 3/5 However, later on, upon finding that it was the respondent No. 5, who allegedly killed her father, a subsequent FIR on 14.09.2024 was lodged by the police authorities against the respondent No. 5, which was registered and numbered as Chabua Police Station Case No. 70/2024 under Sections 103/238/3(4) of the BNS corresponding to Dibrugarh Sessions Case No. 354/2024. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 and other co-accused persons have been arrested and are in custody in Central Jail, Dibrugarh. 4. The petitioner, being the only child, is one of the legal heirs entitled to family pension under Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 5. The respondent No. 5, the widow of the deceased, is stated to be under custody in connection with the aforesaid criminal case. It further appears that the petitioner is the sole eye witness in the said case. 6. On 10.04.2025, this Court, considering the peculiar circumstances, directed the respondent authorities to release provisional family pension to the petitioner. However, due to the absence of a formal No Objection Certificate from the respondent No. 5, the said direction could not be effectively implemented. 7. Respondent No. 5 has now filed an affidavit before this Court, stating that as per the relevant Family Pension Rules, both, she and her minor daughter, are entitled to share the pensionary benefits. Mr. R Islam, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 5 has also fairly conceded to such entitlement and has submitted that the respondent has no objection to the same being released in accordance with law. Relevant paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, which reads as under – “6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph Nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the writ petition, the Respondent No. 5 begs to state that , it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is a minor child studying in Class-II and is presently under the care of her paternal aunt, who has been appointed as interim guardian and the petitioner No. 1, being a child of tender age studying in Class-II, has neither the maturity nor the knowledge to understand or utilize pensionary Page No.# 4/5 benefits, and therefore, any such monetary benefit would in fact be managed and controlled by her paternal aunt. While the guardian may claim financial hardship, it is respectfully submitted that this cannot be a justification to divert or appropriate the lawful entitlements of the widow of the deceased. The requirement of a “No Objection Certificate” from the Respondent No. 5 has been rightly insisted upon by the authorities, as she continues to be the legally wedded wife of Late Madhurja Boruah and the natural mother of the petitioner No. 1. Pensionary benefits are meant for the welfare of both the child and the surviving spouse, and not to be handed over unilaterally to the relatives under the guise of guardianship. Therefore, any attempt to secure such benefits without my consent is contrary to law and would effectively place the funds at the disposal of the guardian for her own use, rather than ensuring their intended protection for the child’s long-term welfare. ” 8. Apt at this stage, also to refer to Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which read as under – “14. (i) Family for the purpose of rules in this Section will include the following relatives of the officer – (a) wife, in case of a male officer; (b) husband, in case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried minor daughters.” 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, it appears that the entitlement to provisional family pension is not in dispute. It further appears that the only impediment is procedural in nature. It is well settled that provisional family pension is a statutory right and cannot be denied to an eligible dependent on mere technicalities or administrative inaction. The right to provisional family pension is meant for the sustenance of the dependent of the deceased employee and the authorities are expected to ensure its release with expedition, Page No.# 5/5 especially in cases involving minors. 10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that 50% of the admissible provisional family pension shall be released in favour of the petitioner through her court-appointed guardian forthwith, and the balance 50% shall remain in abeyance to be disbursed in accordance with law. 11. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to take all consequential steps for release of 50% of the provisional family pension to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of communication of this order. Such payment shall be made directly into the account of the petitioner’s court-appointed guardian under due verification and effective oversight of the competent Treasury Officer. 12. Needless to state, the said payment shall be subject to adjustment or revision in accordance with the final determination of entitlement, if any, at a later stage. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 14. Interim order passed earlier, stands merged with this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant