Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010004592025 2025:GAU-AS:368 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/141/2025 PIYARUN NESSA MAZUMDER W/O LATE NAMAR ALI MAZUMDER, R/O VILL- ALGAPUR PART-V, P.O.- KALIBARIBAZAR, P.S.-LAGAPUR, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788150 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE COMM AND SECY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 5:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781028 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER Page No.# 2/5 HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788151 7:ALEYA BEGUM MAZUMDER W/O LATE NAMAR ALI MAZUMDER R/O VILL- ALGAPUR PART-V P.O.-KALIBARIBAZAR P.S.-ALGAPUR DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, H YEASMIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR H I CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR A K AZAD(R-7),G UDDIN (R-7),SC, AG (A AND E),SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR ORDER Date : 10.01.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Ms. N. Phukan, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6, Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, Accountant General for the respondent No.5 and Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. The husband of the petitioner, late Namar Ali Mazumder, while working as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) at Chandipur Grant M. E. School in Hailakandi district went on retirement on 30.09.2005. The petitioner was married with the late Namar Ali Mazumder on 10.05.1976. The petitioner’s late husband also Page No.# 3/5 performed a second marriage with the respondent No.7, namely, Aleya Begum Mazumder on 17.01.2000. After retirement, the husband of the petitioner and the respondent No.7, namely, late Namar Ali Mazumder died on 17.03.2023. Thereafter, the Next of Kin Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority on 28.06.2023, wherein, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 1 as the first wife and the name of the respondent No.7 appeared at Sl. No. 5 as the second wife. 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.7, who is the second wife of the petitioner’s late husband also executed a joint compromise/settlement of family pension on 07.10.2024, by way of an affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent No.7, jointly made a representation before the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi on 07.10.2024 praying for equal distribution of family pension in their favour. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7, jointly submits that their cases are covered by the ratio laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Junufa Bibi (Mustt) Vs. Padma Begum (Mustt) & Ors reported in 2023 (1) GLT (FB) 736. 4. This Court has considered the ratio laid down in the case of Junufa Bibi (supra) and is also of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 is covered by the aforementioned case. In the case of Junufa Bibi (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has held as under: “20. As a corollary to the provisions of the Rule 143 (iii) of the Pension Rules of 1969, Note 1 to Rule 143 (ii) would have to be read to mean that the family pension would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widows in the event there are two or more widows, and thereafter, on her death it would be payable to the next surviving widow, if any and thereafter, to the minor children if the occasion arises. 21. In the circumstance, the concept of a validity and acceptability of a second Page No.# 4/5 marriage where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law and the consequential entitlement to the benefits of a family pension and the concept to whom the family pension would be payable under the Pension Rules of 1969 are held to be two separate and unrelated concepts and the implication of the concept of a validity and acceptability of a second marriage or further marriages where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law would have no bearing on the concept to whom the family pension is payable under the Pension Rules of 1969. It is held that irrespective of the validity and acceptability of a second marriage or further marriages where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law, the family pension under Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969 would be payable to the eldest of the surviving widow, which would also be applicable for a family pension where the parties are governed by the principles of Mohammedan Law, and where there may be a validity and acceptability of the second wife or further wives in respect of a deceased Mohammedan employee. 22. 22. We further hold that the family pension being payable to the eldest of the surviving widow or wife would not mean that the entire family pension so payable would be the personal property of the eldest of the surviving widow or wife and the family pension so payable would be held by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife as a trustee for all such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969. 23. We also provide that in the event any such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969, including the second or further wives, in a case where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law, are not appropriately maintained by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife to whom the pension would be paid, the remedy thereof would be to make a claim for maintenance in the appropriate forum under the law and not a claim for a payment of the family pension by the State authorities directly to such persons. But however, if in a given case the State authorities on their own volition are of the view that under an acceptable circumstance the authorities are agreeable or required to pay the pension separately to any such member of a family of a deceased employee, this judgment may not be construed to be an absolute bar on such separate payment.” Page No.# 5/5 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi/ respondent No.6 to dispose of the joint representation made by the petitioner and the respondent No.7 on 07.10.2024 in terms of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of This Court in the case of Junufa Bibi (supra) within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 6. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant