Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010005812021 2026:GAU-AS:13611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/213/2021 CHAYA RANI DAS W/O LATE MONILAL DAS RESIDENT OF COUNCIL PWD COLONY, HAFLONG TOWN, PS HAFLONG, DIST DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, 788819 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,HAFLONG BUILDING DIVISION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAFLONG BUILDING DIVISION HAFLONG DIMA HASAO ASSAM 3:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAFLONG BUILDING SUB DIVISION HAFLONG DIMA HASAO ASSAM 4:JUNIOR ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAFLONG BUILDING DIVISION HAFLONG DIMA HASAO ASSAM Page No.# 2/9 5:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI ASSAM 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SARKAR, MR P K BASU,MR N M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MR. C S HAZARIKA,MR B GOGOI (SC, FINANCE),SC, N C HILLS,SC, AG BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 14/09/2026 Heard Mr. N Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing counsel, Public Works Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4, Mr. C Baruah, learned Standing counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 5, Ms. R M Barooah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. G Bokolial, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon Page No.# 3/9 the respondent authorities for authorizing to her family pension in respect to the services rendered by her deceased husband, Monilal Das. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner, Late Monilal Das, was engaged as a Muster Roll Labour in the month of February, 1988. It is projected that the husband of the petitioner, thereafter, continued to discharge his duties in such capacity, till he was brought to the regular cadre by way of issuance of an order dated 23.05.2003. Unfortunately, after being regularized in his services, the husband of the petitioner, passed on, on 25.06.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities for being authorized family pension and other pensionary benefits in respect of the services rendered by her deceased husband. The claim made by the petitioner was accepted by the PWD authorities and a Pension Proposal in favour of the petitioner was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, for disbursement of pension to the petitioner. The pension not being disbursed to the petitioner, she has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. N Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that although, the husband of the petitioner had rendered services as a regular employee only for a period of around 1 (one) month and thereafter, had passed on, the husband of the petitioner, being engaged as a Muster Roll worker, w.e.f. February, 1988, the period of service rendered by her husband, w.e.f. February, 1988, should be deemed to be qualifying service for authorization of family pension and other pensionary benefits. He submits that in view of the said position emanating in the matter, the qualifying service rendered by the petitioner’s husband, being now required to be so construed, w.e.f. February, 1988, the husband of the petitioner at the time of his death, must be deemed to Page No.# 4/9 have rendered more than 1 (one) year of service and accordingly, the petitioner is to be held to be entitled to family pension and other pensionary benefits. 5. Per contra, Mr. R Dhar, learned Standing counsel, PWD, has submitted that the regularization effected in respect of the petitioner vide order dated 23.05.2003, was so effected by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Haflong Building Division, without any jurisdiction. He submits that the said order of regularization of service of the petitioner would be of no consequence and accordingly, the husband of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a regularized employee in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Haflong Building Division, inasmuch as, such regularization of service was not approved by the competent authority of the department. 5.1 Mr. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, PWD, by referring to the provisions of Rule 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1969), has submitted that in case of death of a Government servant while in service, such Government servant must have completed a minimum period of 1 (one) year of service on the date of his death. He submits that the husband of the petitioner from the date of his regularization in services having not completed 1 (one) year of service, the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to claim family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her husband prior to his death. 5.2 Mr. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, PWD, has submitted that on a mistaken notion of the matter, a pension proposal was prepared in respect of the petitioner and forwarded to the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, however, noticing the inconsistencies existing in such proposal, the Accountant General, had returned the said proposal by projecting that in terms of the provisions of Page No.# 5/9 Rule 140 of the Rules of 1969, the husband of the petitioner having rendered only 1 (one) month 4 (four) days of regular service, i.e., qualifying service, she would not be entitled to be authorized family pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, Mr. Dhar, submits that in view of the bar existing in the provisions of Rule 140 of the Rules of 1969, the claim of the petitioner made in the present writ petition, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 6. Mr. C Baruah, learned Standing counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, has submitted that the pension proposal received for disbursement of pension to the petitioner by the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, was closely examined and it being found that the husband of the petitioner had not rendered the minimum qualifying service of 1 (one) year, pursuant to the regularization of his services, the petitioner was held to be not entitled to receive her pension and pensionary benefits. He submits that further inconsistencies were found in the pension proposal submitted in respect of the petitioner and accordingly, the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, had returned the same to the PWD authorities for resubmission of the same, by meeting the objections raised. He, however, submits that no fresh proposal was received from the PWD authorities in the matter. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The services of the husband of the petitioner, who was engaged as a Muster Roll Labour, w.e.f. February, 1988, was brought to the regular cadre against a post of Chowkidar, vide issuance of an order dated 23.05.2003. 9. Mr. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, PWD, has contended that the said Page No.# 6/9 order dated 23.05.2003, cannot be construed to be an order, regularizing the services of the husband of the petitioner, inasmuch as, it was issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Haflong Building Division, without jurisdiction. He submits that no approval was taken from the competent authority of the Public Works Department by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Haflong Building Division, before regularizing the services of the husband of the petitioner. 10. The said submission has been appreciated by this Court in the light of the contentions raised by the PWD authorities in an affidavit filed by them in the matter. This Court on a perusal of the affidavit filed in the matter by the PWD authorities, finds that said stand was not brought on record by way of filing an affidavit, however, the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Executive Engineer, PWD, Haflong Building Division, which falls under the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, has filed an affidavit and therein, has reiterated that the services of the petitioner’s husband was regularized on 23.05.2003. In absence of any material being placed on record questioning the jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Haflong Building Division, to regularize the services of husband of the petitioner, this Court would not proceed to entertain the objection raised in this connection by Mr. Dhar, learned Standing counsel, PWD and accordingly, the said contention stands rejected. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the husband of the petitioner was working as a Muster Roll Labour, w.e.f. February, 1988 and had continuously discharged his duties in such capacity till the passing of the order dated 23.05.2003. By the said order dated 23.05.2003, the services of the husband of the petitioner was brought to the regular cadre against a post of Chowkidar and he was authorized a scale of pay w.e.f. 23.05.2003. Page No.# 7/9 Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner, after rendering such service as a regular Government employee for a period of 1 (one) month 4 (four) days, had passed on, on 25.06.2003. 12. The provisions of Rule 140 of the Rules of 1969 mandates that in case of death of a Government servant, while in service, for the purpose of authorization of family pension to the family members of such Government servant, the Government servant concerned must have completed a minimum period of 1 (one) year of service. The minimum period of 1 (one) year of service also means that the Government servant concerned must have had a qualifying service of minimum 1 (one) year to entitle his family members to receive family pension and other pensionary benefits. Admittedly, with effect from the date of regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner vide order dated 23.05.2003, he cannot be held to have a qualifying service of 1 (one) year before the date of his death. Accordingly, the bar under Rule 140 of the Rules of 1969 is found to have been attracted to the case of the husband of the petitioner, which would have the effect of disentitling the petitioner from claiming family pension and/or other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her husband. 13. However, it is a settled position of law that the services rendered by an employee prior to the date of regularization of his services, have to be deemed to be qualifying service for the purpose of entitling his family members the family pension and other pensionary benefits. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Punjab School Education Board and Another Vs. Satnam Singh and Others [2026 INSC 965], appreciating pari materia provisions as existing in the Page No.# 8/9 provisions of the Rules of 1969, has held that on regularization of services, the services rendered prior to such regularization shall be deemed to be qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits. 15. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab School Education Board (supra), along with the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969, this Court is of the considered view that the services rendered by the deceased husband of the petitioner, w.e.f. February, 1988, till 25.06.2003 is to be deemed to be qualifying service for the purpose of authorizing to the petitioner, family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her husband. The husband of the petitioner now being found to reckon his services w.e.f February, 1988, till the date of his death as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits, the husband of the petitioner, on the date of his death, must be deemed to have rendered more than 1 (one) year of qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits and accordingly, the petitioner is held to be entitled to be authorized family pension and other pensionary benefits. 16. In view of the above discussion, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Haflong Building Division, i.e., the respondent No. 2, is directed to resubmit the family pension proposal in favour of the petitioner, to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, by now reckoning the services rendered by her husband, w.e.f. February, 1988, till the date of his demise as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits. The said respondent shall also submit the said proposal by rectifying the errors, which have been highlighted by the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, in the proposal earlier submitted in favour of authorization of family pension to the petitioner, herein. Page No.# 9/9 17. The respondent No. 2 shall submit the pension proposal in favour of the petitioner to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by strictly complying with the directions passed, hereinabove. 18. The office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam shall, thereafter, within a further period of 2 (two) months, process the matter and issue the requisite Family Pension Payment Order (FPPO) as well as the Gratuity Payment Order (GPO) to the petitioner. 19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant