Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010156332025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4207/2025 SABITREE CHANGMAI GOGOI ALIAS SABITRI CHANGMAI (GOGOI) W/O- LATE RAMANI KANTA GOGOI , ALIAS RAMANI GOGOI, R/O- VILL- HALUA GAON, P.O- BARHAT, DIST- CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN-785693 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM COMMISSIONERATE OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037 5:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION ASSAM HOUSEFED COMPLEX GUWAHATI-06 6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SIBSAGAR ZILLA PARISHAD SIBSAGAR DIST- SIBSAGAR ASSAM PIN-78640 7:THE TREASURY OFFICER SIBSAGAR TREASURY SIBSAGAR DIST- SIBSAGAR ASSAM PIN-78564 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS CHITRALEKHA DAS, MS. D DEVI,MR. K R PATGIRI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 27.02 .2026 Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Ghosh learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel for Finance. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the widow of late Ramani Kanta Gogoi. Page No.# 3/5 The husband of the petitioner was serving as a Gaon Panchayat Secretary in the district of Sivasagar. He joined his service on 12.10.1993 and his service was regularized with effect from 10.06.2003. Pursuant to his regularization of service, he served in various places and had also received regular pay scale. His last place of posting was Naharpukhuri Gaon Panchayat. During the course of his service there, the husband of the petitioner expired on 08.08.2009 leaving behind the petitioner being wife, two sons, along with his mother and father. Pursuant to the demise of the husband of the petitioner, she had been approaching the respondent’s authorities for release of the family pension benefits. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the family pension papers were duly submitted to the respondent no.6 namely, The Chief Executive Officer, Sibsagar Zilla Parishad, Sibsagar for being forwarded to the office of the respondent no.4, namely, The Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, only the GIS amount and leave encashment benefits were released to the petitioner. However, the family pension benefits have not yet been released in spite of approaching the respondent authorities on several times. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the contention raised by the petitioner that he is covered under the new pension scheme. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The counsels in the Bar are in agreement that the entitlement of pensionary benefits to Gaon Panchayat Secretaries have been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WA 145/2009 (the State of Assam vs. Syed Md. Fazlay Rabbi) by the judgment and order dated 24.03.2010. That apart, the order issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development in respect of entitlement of pensionary benefits to the Gaon Page No.# 4/5 Panchayat Secretaries by order dated 28.03.2018 have been interfered with by another Division Bench of this Court rendered in WA No. 133/2023 by judgment and order dated 05.08.2023. The Division Bench upheld the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2022 passed by another co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No.4397/22. The Division Bench in its judgment held that in view of the communication dated 30.05.2003 issued by the Government that employees of the Panchayat Raj Institute will be treated as regular employees of the Panchayat Raj Institution, the subsequent communications or orders passed by the Government holding that the benefit of regularisation will be with prospective effect from the date they have joined in the post created ex-post- facto for giving them the benefit of regular service. Consequently, the Division Bench held that those employees who were given regular benefits by creation of ex-post-facto cannot be treated as “new entrants” joining the State Government services subsequently after introduction of new pension scheme. They have to be treated as employees who had joined as Government employees under the old pension scheme. It was held by the division bench that such employees could not be brought under the new pension scheme. 7. The judgment and order dated 24.03.2010 passed in W.A. No.145/2009; the judgment dated 05.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 4397/2022 and the judgment and order dated 05.08.2023 passed in W.A. No.133/2023 have been carefully perused. Having perused those judgments, it is found that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the said judgments rendered in W.A. No 145/2009 on 24.03.2010 and WA No.133/2023 on 05.08.2023. 8. In that view of the matter the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately process the pension papers of the late Page No.# 5/5 husband of the petitioner and take necessary steps so that the pensionary benefits can be granted to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner will furnish a certified copy of this order before the respondent who in turn will issue necessary directions to the concerned respondents/officials to prepare the pension papers of the late husband of the petitioner and forward the same to the Director of Pension, Assam within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The Pension Department will thereafter take necessary steps for release of the pension of the petitioner’s husband within outer limit of 60 (sixty) days thereafter. The petitioner shall furnish all the necessary particulars to the respondents required for processing the family pension of the petitioner. 9. Writ petition stands allowed and disposed of in terms of the above. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, are closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant