Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010076702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2333/2025 SMTI PRATIMA SARKAR AND ORS WIFE OF LATE RANJIT KR RAY , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERABARI PT III, AGOMANI, DHUBRI, ASSAM 783335 2: SMT BAISHNABI ROY DAUGHTER OF LATE RANJIT KR RAY WHO IS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER (PETITIONER NO 1) RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUBRI ASSAM 783335 3: SRI CHINIRAM RAY R/O VILL KHERABARI PT III PO KHERABARI PS AGOMANI DHUBRI ASSAM 783335 4: SRI KANAKLATA RAY WIFE OF CHINIRAM RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERABARI PT III PO AGOMANI DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT , DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007 Page No.# 2/6 3:THE COMMANDANT 9TH ASSAM POLICE BATTALION BARHAMPUR NAGAON ASSAM 782001 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 5:SMTI KRISHNA ROY DAUGHTER OF TEJENDRA NATH RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERABARI PT III PO KHERABARI PS AGOMANI DHUBRI ASSAM 78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N SARMA, MR. M MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. A ALI (R-5),SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 18.06. 2026 Heard Mr. N. Sarma learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate for the State, Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, wherein the petitioner No. 1 claims to be legally wedded wife of late Ranjit Kr. Ray, the petitioner No. 2 is his minor daughter, and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are his father and mother, respectively. The late husband of the petitioner No. 1 was serving under the Page No.# 3/6 Assam Police and was posted in the Office of the Commandant, 9th Assam Police Battalion, Nagaon. Unfortunately, the husband of the said petitioner died in harness on 08.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities for release of compassionate family pension and other service related benefits in terms of notification dated 14.09.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Next of Kin (NOK) certificate dated 21.09.2022, which is annexed to the writ petition, in support of the claim of the petitioner that they are the legal heirs of late Ranjit Kr. Ray. While the claim of the petitioner was under consideration, the private respondent No. 5 also staked her claim, stating that she is the first wife of late Ranjit Kr. Ray and therefore she is the lawful person to receive the benefits of compassionate family pension. 3. Pleadings have been exchanged between the learned counsels for the parties. In the affidavit filed by the Private Respondents No. 5, particularly in paragraph No. 10, 12 and 16 there is a specific averment that the petitioners are entitled to a share of the pension amount under the Compassionate Family Pension (CFP) Scheme and that the respondent No. 5 is ready and willing to share the same with them. The said averments are extracted hereinbelow: “10. That as regards the statements made in Para 8, the answering respondent denies and dispute the same for being false and perverted. The petitioners falsely projected them as the sole heirs of the deceased incumbent whereas, the answering respondent being the legally wedded wife and her son namely Ranadip Roy are entitled to the benefits of the Compassionate Family Pension (CFP) Scheme for being the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Of course, the other members who are Page No.# 4/6 mentioned as the legal heirs in the NOK dated 04.10.2021 are also entitled to some share of the pension amount under CFP scheme and the answering respondent is ready and willing to give it to them. 12. That as regards the statements made in Para 10, the answering respondent begs to submit that the authorities were pleased to sanction and release the benefits of CFP scheme to the answering respondent by issuing notice dated Nill in the year 2022 after duly verifying all requisitedocuments. The answering respondent does not dispute the entitlement of Petitioner No. 3&4 and also of the minor daughter being born to petitioner no. 1 out of her wedlock with the deceased incumbent. She would also not shy away from her liability towards petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 in as much as they all are entitled to some share of the service benefits as per government rules and the answering respondent would duly comply to the same. 16. That as regards the statements made in Para 15, the answering respondent offers no comment as it pertains to the prerogatives of the departmental authorities. But so far the factum of release of benefits to the answering respondent is concerned, the answering respondent begs to state that the authorities have rightly released the same to the answering respondent after considering requisite documents and her entitlement as well. So, no interference is warranted more so when the claim of the petitioner no. 1 is barred by relevant rules and the laws. The answering respondent duly undertakes that she would take care of the other legal heirs. Page No.# 5/6 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the averments made in the said affidavit, the writ petition can be closed, directing the respondent authorities to release the claims in respect of late Ranjit Kr. Ray towards Compassionate Family Pension. It is further submitted that, upon such benefits being released, the respondent No. 5 should be directed to give the proportionate share thereof to the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 5. The learned counsel for the State also submits that, in view of the legal heir certificate and averments made in the affidavit of Respondent No. 5, the petitioner No.1 appears to be the second wife of late Ranjit Kr. Ray, and therefore submitted that the entitlement of pensionary benefits would be required to be released to the respondent No. 5 as also the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in accordance with the applicable Rules. 6. The question relating to the sharing of pension between the legal heirs and nominees of a deceased Government servant has been considered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court, rendered in Mustt Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt Padma Begum and 4 Ors. reported in Writ Appeal No. 160/2018, where the Court has laid down the procedure and manner in which the pensionary benefits are to be shared. 7. The averments made by the Respondent No. 5, in the said extracted paragraphs clearly indicates that the Respondent No. 5 being the first wife, upon receipt of pension, is willing to make the proportionate share of the benefits to the other claimants, including the present writ petitioner. It has also been submitted that the Respondent No. 5 is presently receiving the pension. Page No.# 6/6 8. In view of the specific averments made in the affidavit and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition stands closed without any further directions, save and except that the Respondent No. 5 will abide by the averments made in the said affidavit. 9. Needless to say that the claims of the second wife vis-à-vis the first wife have been clearly delineated in the judgment and order dated 22.12.2022 rendered in Mustt Junufa Bibi vs. Mustt Padma Begum and 4 Ors. reported in Writ Appeal No. 160/2018. Therefore, the law laid down therein will govern the claim of the petitioners with regard to pensionary and other service benefits. 10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated. 12. Pending I.A(s), if any, are also dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant