Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010184762026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4789/2026 SMTI BADI CHETRY W/O- LATE PRAKASH CHETRY @ PRAKASH BISTA CHETRI, R/O-VILL. - UMPANAI, P.O. - UMPANAI, P.S. - BAITHALANGSO, DIST - KARBI ANGLONG WEST, ASSAM PIN -782413 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PUBLIC WORKS (ROADS) DEPARTMENT, (AUDIT BRANCH), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 DIST. - KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) UMPANAI DIVISION ULUKUNCHI P.O.- UMPANAI DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN - 782413. 4:THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) UMWANG SUB-DIVISION P.O.-ULUKUNCHI Page No.# 2/14 PIN-782413 DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 5:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU DIST - KARBI ANGLONG P.O. - DIPHU PIN -782460 ASSAM 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TRAINING PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES (ARTPPG) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 06 DIST. - KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 7:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA P.O.- BELTOLA GUWAHATI - 29 DIST - KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 06 DIST. - KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORAH, MR. R DOWARAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FINANCE DEPTT.,SC, K A A C,SC, AG (A AND E),SC, PWD ROAD Page No.# 3/14 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. D Borah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dhar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6 and Mr. B Sarmah, Learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 7 and Ms. V Shohe, Learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC), appearing for Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. A Chaliha, Learned Standing Counsel, Dept. of Finance, Assam, appearing for Respondent No. 8. 2. The Petitioner, by way of instituting the present Writ Petition, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to regularize the services of her deceased husband, who had died in harness, while serving as a Work Charged, Jeep Driver in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi, Karbi Anglong. 3. The husband of the Petitioner, Sri. Prakash Chetry @ Prakash Bista Chetri, was initially engaged as a Muster Roll Worker for the works of a Driver in the establishment of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, (R), Umwang Sub- Division in the district Page No.# 4/14 of Karbi Anglong, vide a memo dated 28.11.1995. Thereafter, the husband of the Petitioner was appointed as a Work Charged Jeep Driver for a period of 3 (three) months, vide an order dated 29.02.1996, and was placed in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R), Umpanai Division, Ulukunchi, Karbi Anglong. It is projected that the husband of the Petitioner was continuing to discharge his duties, however, on account of the ailments suffered by him, he passed on, on 10.07.2015. 3.1 The services of the husband of the Petitioner, not having been regularized during his life time, the claim made by the Petitioner for being authorized family pension, was not entertained. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 8498/2019. This Court, vide order dated 07.12.2021, gave a final consideration to the said Writ Petition and disposed of the same by directing the Petitioner to submit a representation before the Principal Secretary, KAAC, for grant of adequate financial relief, as may be available. This Court further directed the Respondents to consider the representations submitted by the Petitioner and to extend all possible financial benefit, within the existing schemes and other constitutional provisions to the Petitioner, so as to facilitate maintenance by her of Page No.# 5/14 a dignified life. It was further provided that in future, in the event, pension and pensionary benefits are made available to the category of employees like the husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner also would be entitled to be extended with similar benefits. 3.2 The Petitioner projects that thereafter, the Petitioner had submitted an appeal petition before the Respondent authorities praying for extending to her, requisite benefits. The Petitioner had also submitted an appeal before the authorities praying for relaxation of the provisions of the Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, so as to facilitate regularization of the services of her deceased husband and thereby, facilitate receipt by her, of family pension and other pensionary benefits. The Respondents, not having considered the prayers made by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. D Borah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that this Court, in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) No. 8498/2019, had directed the Respondent authorities to extend to the Petitioner, adequate financial relief, so as to maintain a dignified life. He submits that the Respondent authorities have not taken any steps, Page No.# 6/14 in pursuance, thereof. He further submits that the Petitioner had also approached the competent authority, praying for relaxation of the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1969, so as to facilitate regularization of the services of her deceased husband and also treat the period of Work Charge Service rendered by him, as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits, which, if accepted, would have resulted in the Petitioner being extended with family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her husband. 5. Mr. D Borah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent authorities have not even considered the said application submitted by the Petitioner and accordingly, the Petitioner is presently placed in a position where she cannot manage her day to day needs as well as the needs of her family members. 6. In the above premises, Mr. D Borah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent authorities be directed to consider the application submitted by the Petitioner for relaxation of the provisions of Rules 31 of the Rules of 1969, within the time frame that may be prescribed by this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. R Dhar, Learned Counsel appearing for Page No.# 7/14 the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6, submits that initial engagement of the husband of the Petitioner as a Muster Roll worker was so effected, w.e.f 28.11.1995. He submits that the said engagement being after 01.04.1993, the case of the husband of the Petitioner is not covered by the policy decision arrived at by the Government of Assam for regularization of services of the Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge Employees, engaged prior to 01.04.1993. Mr. R Dhar, Learned Counsel, by referring to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in (2026) INSC 523, has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the scheme for regularization of services of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge Employees, formulated by the Government of Assam, would be strictly applicable, only in respect of the such workers who were engaged prior to 01.04.1993. Accordingly, he submits that the husband of the Petitioner being a post 01.04.1993 engagee, he would be covered by the policy adopted by the Respondent authorities for regularization of the services of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge employees and accordingly, the services of the husband of the Petitioner, would not be permissible to be regularized and accordingly, the claim of the Petitioner for being Page No.# 8/14 granted family pension and other pensionary benefits, cannot be entertained. 8. Mr. R Dhar, Learned Counsel, by referring to the decision of this Court in the earlier round of litigation instituted by the Petitioner, i.e. the proceedings in WP(C) 8498/2019, has submitted that, therein, also, this Court had come to a conclusion in paragraph 20, that the Petitioner would not be entitled to receive any family pension and other pensionary benefits. Accordingly, Mr. R Dhar, Learned Counsel submits that no challenge having been presented to the said decision of this Court by the Petitioner, the present Writ Petition, claiming the same reliefs, would not be maintainable. 9. Mr. B Sarmah, Learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam, has submitted that no proposal for disbursing to the Petitioner family pension and other pensionary benefits, on account of the services rendered by her husband, has been received by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam. 10. Ms. V Shohe, Learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, appearing for Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5 submits that she would adopt the arguments advanced by Mr. R Dhar, Learned Counsel Page No.# 9/14 appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6. 11. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. It is not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties that the husband of the Petitioner was engaged as a Muster Roll Worker, w.e.f 28.11.1995. Thereafter, he was brought to the Work Charge establishment, vide order dated 29.02.1996. The husband of the Petitioner, having been engaged post 01.04.1993, he is not to be covered by the policy decision adopted by the Government of Assam, for regularizing the services of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge Employees, who were so engaged prior to 01.04.1993. 13. The husband of the Petitioner had passed on, on, 10.07.2015. The Petitioner, by raising the similar claims, as raised in the present Writ Petition, had earlier approached this Court by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 8498/2019. A coordinate Bench of this Court, gave a final consideration to the same and vide judgment and order dated 07.12.2021, had drawn the following conclusions : “20. In the instant case, as we have already noticed the relevant provisions of law as well as the various pronouncements, other than Prem Singh (supra) does Page No.# 10/14 not enable the petitioner to make out a case that considering the nature of the employment the deceased husband of the petitioner had held and the period of service he had rendered would entitle him to a pension and that as a consequence under Rule 143 of the Rules of 1969, the petitioner would also be entitled to family pension. 21. 21. Having concluded as Indicated, we again take note of the provisions of the Supreme Court that the employees who had served the State Government authorities in a manner other than a regular employee and thereby not being entitled to pension or family pension should also be not allowed to become destitutes and lead their life at the mercy of others. Article 21 of the Constitution of India had been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a manner that right to life also includes the right to food, shelter and a minimum entitlement of life. We have been told that pursuant to the requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India several social welfare schemes are available with the Government authorities to ensure that the right to life of a citizen is not infringed upon, although it is also to be expected that such schemes would only be applicable to a particular category and classes of citizens and not across the board to every citizens who otherwise do not have the requirement of the benefits of such social schemes. If the petitioner would not be entitled to a family pension and as her deceased husband would also be no longer able to bring the financial resources to her family for its sustenance, no deeper anticipation is required to forsee the situation whether the petitioner may be turned to a destitute and would be required to lead her life at the mercy of others. 22. To mitigate the situation, we require the petitioner to submit a representation before the Principal Secretary to the KAAC for grant of adequate financial relief as may be available within the existing schemes and other Page No.# 11/14 provisions put in place in furtherance of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Principal Secretary while considering the representation would extend all possible financial benefits within the existing schemes and other constitutional provision that can be given to the petitioner and in no circumstance, whatever is provided shall be less than what, it requires for a dignified life to be maintained by the petitioner as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and more particularly to ensure that the petitioner and other dependent family members do not become destitutes. The reasoned order be passed by the Principal Secretary within a period of one month from the date of the representation. In doing so, the Principal Secretary shall not take a narrow pedantic view of the matter and ensure that maximum financial benefits as may be possible be provided so that the petitioners can live a dignified life befitting her status as the wife of the deceased husband. 23. We further provide that in the event a law is laid down for entitlement of pensionery benefits to a category of employees to which the deceased husband of the petitioner belonged or any such scheme is adopted by the respondent authorities, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make such claim in the future. 24. Considering the anticipated situation that in the absence of any financial benefit the petitioner and the family member may become destitutes, the claim of the petitioner for such benefits be addressed In an appropriate manner so as to make the petitioner entitled to such benefits.” 14. A perusal of the said conclusions would go to reveal that the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 8498/2019, had concluded that the Petitioner would not be entitled to draw pension and pensionary benefits. However, this Court had required the Respondent authorities to grant to the petitioner, financial Page No.# 12/14 reliefs, as would be permissible under law. 15. The matter, with regard to the regularization of Services of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge Employees, engaged prior to 01.04.1993, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra), wherein, a challenge was made to the decision of this Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of State of Assam Vs. Upen Das reported in (2020) 5 GLT 605. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra), had categorically held that the regularization permitted by it to be effected in respect of Muster Roll Workers/Work Charge Employees, shall be so limited only to such category of employees, persons who were employed in such capacity, prior to 01.04.1993. Accordingly, applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra), to the facts of the present case, the husband of the Petitioner having been engaged post 01.04.1993, this Court is of the considered view that the services of the husband of the Petitioner, cannot be regularized under any circumstance. Accordingly, the Petitioner would not be entitled to receive any family pension and other pensionary benefits, inasmuch as, such Page No.# 13/14 benefits would be permissible only in the event, the services of the deceased government servant, was regularized prior to his death or was so done posthumously after his death. 17. Accordingly, the prayer of the Petitioner for a direction upon the Respondent authorities for consideration of her application submitted for relaxation of the provisions of Rule 31, in her case, also stands rejected, inasmuch as, in the event of allowing such application, the same would have the effect of over-reaching the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (Supra). 18. However, the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of the services of her deceased husband, be not construed that this Court, had also negated the directions passed by this Court, in paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment and order dated 07.12.2021 in WP(C) No. 8498/2019. The said directions are held to continue to operate, and the Respondent authorities shall be duty-bound to act accordingly. 19. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 14/14 JUDGE Comparing Assistant