Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010012972025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/396/2025 USHA @ KRISHNA GOGOI BORAH WIFE OF LATE BIJU KUMAR BORAH , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PHUTCHANG GAON , P.O- MOWAMARI , P.S- JENGRAIMUKH , DIST -MAJULI , ASSAM, PIN- 785105. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF PENSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX GUWAHATI ASSAM. 4:THE TREASURY OFFICER GARAMUR DIST.- MAJULI PIN- 785104. 5:BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PHULONI BRANCH PHULONI CHARIALI DIST.- MAJULI ASSAM. PIN- 785104. Page No.# 2/4 6:BIPUL KHANIKAR HEADMASTER RATANPUR MIRI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL P.O.- RATANPUR MIRI MAJULI PIN- 785105. 7:JINUMONI BORAH D/O- ARUN BORAH VILL- DEWLIAGAON P.O.- DHAKUAKHANA P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787055 8:AKANKSHA BORA C/O- ARUN BORAH VILL- DEWLIAGAON P.O.- DHAKUAKHANA P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787055 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. B GOGOI, MS M BORAH,MR K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 29.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was married to Late Biju Kumar Borah on 06.05.2012 as per Hindu rites. The petitioner’s husband, who was an Assistant Teacher in the Ratanpur Miri Girls High School, Majuli, died in harness on 02.11.2024. After the death of her husband, respondent No. 7 who claimed to be the wife and respondent No. 8 who claimed to be the daughter of the petitioner’s husband, have sought to get all the pensionary and other benefits of her husband. 2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that during the lifetime of her husband, her husband had executed a Will which was registered with the Sub-Registrar Office, Garamur, Majuli. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to all the pensionary benefits and properties of her late husband in terms of the said WILL. In this respect, petitioner had also filed a representation dated 26.12.2024 before the Inspector of Schools, which has not been decided till date. He submits that a direction be issued to the Inspector of Schools, to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation. 3. On perusing the writ petition, it is seen that the Head Man, Salmara Mouza who issued the Death Certificate/ Succession Certificate dated 10.11.2024 recorded the fact that the respondent No. 7 was the first wife of the petitioner’s husband and that the respondent No. 8 was the daughter of the deceased, who was aged 17 years. The petitioner has been certified to be the second wife. 4. The stand of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband had executed a Will which is a registered one cannot be acted upon, inasmuch as, a WILL has to be probated as per law before it can be acted upon. In the present case, the alleged WILL executed by the petitioner’s husband has not been probated as per law. 5. It is also seen that the writ petitioner has not challenged the Death Certificate/ Succession Certificate dated 10.11.2024, issued by the Head Man, Page No.# 4/4 Salmara Mouza (Annexure-E) in this writ petition. Further the respondent No. 8 (daughter) was apparently born, way before the marriage of the petitioner with her husband, thereby implying that the marriage of the respondent No. 7 with the petitioner’s husband was earlier in point of time. Though the petitioner has made a prayer that the writ petition can be disposed of, by directing the Inspector of Schools to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation, this court finds that the Inspector of Schools has not been made a party in this writ petition. 6. Considering all the above, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the writ petitioner cannot be decided in this writ petition, as there are questions of facts which have to be gone into. As such, the petitioner would have to approach an appropriate forum to claim the pensionary benefits and property of her husband. As the petitioner‘s earlier representation had been made to an authority who is not a party in the present writ petition, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam with regard to her grievances. The Director shall thereafter take a decision on the petitioner’s representation at the earliest and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 7 and 8. If there remains disputed questions of fact, the parties may have to approach the civil court for redressal of their grievance. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant