Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010007802025 2026:GAU-AS:3375 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/196/2025 NARJI BEGUM W/O LATE TAIYAB ALI, R/O NAGAON, AMINPATTY, THAGISUT PATH, P.O.- NAGOAN, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 11 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY-07 4:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (M AND L) ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 6:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM Page No.# 2/14 MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GHY-21 7:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NAGAON SADAR POLICE STATION NH 36 HAIBARGAON DECCAPATTY NAGAON-782001 ASSAM 8:THE SUPERINTENDENT OPF POLICE S.B (E) GHY ASSAM 9:SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-29 10:TREASURY OFFICER BILASIPARA PIN-783348 11:MURSHIDA BEGUM W/O LT. TAIYAB ALI R/O LAKHIGANJ VASANI GAON DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 12:TAMIYAN BIBI @ TOMIZAN BIBI W/O AKBOR ALI R/O VILL- LAKHIGANJ P.O.-LAKHIGANJ BAZAR DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK, MS F BEGUM,A N HUSSAIN,MR A RAZZAK Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MD J ALOM (R-11),MS A KHATUN(R-11),MR. M ISLAM(R-11),MR. A Z AHMED(R-12),MR. M HUSSAIN (R-12),SC, AG,SC, FINANCE Page No.# 3/14 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 06.03.2026 Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8; Mr. R. Boro, learned counsel, for the respondent no.6, along with Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 10; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no.11; and Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.12. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, had assailed 02 (two) communications both dated 25-11-2024, issued by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, authorizing the respondent no.11, family pension along with other pensionary benefits, including the DCRG receivable on account of the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner and the respondent no.11. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction for release to her, her share of pensionary benefits in terms of the order dated 14-06-2023, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C).No.4015/2022. 3. The petitioner, herein, is the second wife of late Taiyab Ali, who had died in harness while working as an Un-armed Branch Constable in the Assam Police. The respondent no.11 is the first wife of deceased Taiyab Ali, while the petitioner, herein, is the second wife and respondent no.12 is the mother of late Taiyab Ali. Page No.# 4/14 4. The petitioner, herein, had earlier approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.9140/2019, inter alia, raising a grievance with regard to non-disbursal of family pension and other pensionary benefits to her and her children on the death of said Taiyab Ali. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, noticing the stand of the respondent No.11, herein, that she would have no objection for sharing the pension with the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide order dated 02-06-2020 to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the petitioner, herein, and the respondent No.11, herein, to file a joint petition disclosing the agreed proportionate pension receivable by them, on the death of their husband late Taiyab Ali. The petitioner thereafter assailed the said order by way of instituting a writ appeal being W.A.No.78/2020. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12-11-2020 proceeded to dispose of the said writ appeal, directing the respondent authorities to proceed with the joint application, if any, filed by the petitioner and the respondent no.11, herein, in terms of the directions passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide the said order dated 02-06-2020. In pursuance to the said directions, certain amounts were released by the respondent authorities equally to both the petitioner and the respondent no.11. The mother of late Taiyab Ali not being authorized a share in the family pension approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.4015/2022, praying for authorization of a share in the said family pension receivable by the legal heirs of late Taiyab Ali. The petitioner, herein, had also instituted a writ petition being WP(C).No.7160/2022, claiming for the proportionate distribution of the pension and pensionary benefits. Both the said writ petitions were taken up for consideration analogously by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 14-06-2023, noticing the agreement arrived at between the petitioner, herein, the respondent nos.11 and 12, herein, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing that the pension would be Page No.# 5/14 receivable by the parties in accordance with the agreement arrived at in the matter between them. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had vide the said order also observed that the dispute inter se between the parties regarding sharing of family pension would stand resolved permanently with the directions passed in the matter. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also interfered with the order dated 05-09-2022 impugned in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner, whereby the entire amount of pension has been granted in favour of the first wife. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities that the family pension would be receivable in the ratio of 50:50 between the first and second wife of deceased Taiyab Ali, subject to sharing by each of them 10% of the amount of family pension with the mother of the deceased. The respondent authorities thereafter having issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO) along with a Gratuity Payment Order (GPO) in favour of the respondent no.11, herein, and being aggrieved the present writ petition was instituted. This Court vide order dated 27-01-2025 while issuing notice in the present matter, was pleased to direct the respondent authorities only to release 40% of the total amount of the family pension in favour of the respondent no.11 and the balance amount was directed to be withheld. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, had proceeded to issue and FPPO No.1006414322669 in favour of the respondent no.11 authorizing to her the entire family pension, in clear violation of the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2023 in WP(C).No.4015/2022. He submits that in Page No.# 6/14 terms of the directions passed by this Court, the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, was required to issue two FPPO to the petitioner and the respondent no.11, authorizing to them their respective share of the Family Pension. 6. Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted further that the FPPO having being issued only in respect of the respondent no.11, authorizing to her the entire family pension, involved, the respondent no.11 does not share the Family pension with the petitioner, she would be deprived of her legitimate dues. He submits that the petitioner has no means of sustenance and in the event, her share in the Family pension is denied to her, she would be faced with the threat of starvation. 7. In the above premises, Mr. S. Banik, prays that the FPPO dated 25.11.2024 and the GPO dated 25.11.2024 would mandate an interference from this Court, with further direction to the Accountant General, Assam, to issue separate FPPO’s and GPO’s in respect of the petitioner and the respondent no.11, authorizing to them Family pension and other pensionary benefits to the extent of their respective share as determined by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2023 in WP(C).No.4015/2022 and WP(C).No.7160/2022. Alternatively, Mr. S. Banik, prays that this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent no.11 to transfer every month to petitioner and respondent no.12 their respective shares in the Family Pension authorized to the respondent no.11 vide the FPPO dated 25.11.2025, along with the proportionate amount of the amount as authorized to the respondent no.11 vide the GPO dated 25.11.2025. 8. Per contra, Mr. M. Isalm, learned counsel for the respondent no.11, has by referring to the decisions of the full Bench of this Court in the case of Junufa Bibi Vs. Padma Begum & Ors., reported in (2023) 1 GLT (FB) Page No.# 7/14 736, has submitted that it has been laid rest that when there are two or more widow present, the Family Pension Payment Order (FPPO) along with other pensionary benefits would be permissible to be so authorized to the eldest surviving widow, in terms of Note:1 to Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. Accordingly, he submits that the authorization of Family Pension to the respondent no.11 vide the FPPO dated 25.11.2025, would mandate no interference from this Court. He further submits that the issuance of the GPO dated 25.11.2025 would also mandate no interference. 9. Mr. M. Islam, has further submitted that the full Bench in its decision in the case of Junufa Bibi (supra) has further held that in the event, the eldest surviving widow, who is in receipt of family pension, does not appropriately maintain the other legal heirs of the deceased employee, the remedy available to the other legal heirs is to institute proceedings before the appropriate forum claiming maintenance. 10. Mr. M. Islam, in the above premises has submitted that the present writ petition would not be maintainable and would mandate to be dismissed. 11. This Court had queried Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no.11, as to whether the respondent no.11 would on being authorized the family pension, share the amount involved with the respondent no.12 and the petitioner, Mr. M. Islam has submitted on instructions that the respondent no.11 is agreeable to transfer to the respondent no.12 her share in the family pension, however, considering the decision of the full Bench in the case of Junufa Bibi (supra), he submits that the respondent no.11, would not be called upon to share the family pension received by her, with the petitioner, herein. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. Page No.# 8/14 13. This Court vide order dated 02.06.2020 passed in WP(C).9140/2019, noticing the stand of the respondent no.11, herein, that she would have no objection for sharing proportionately the family pension with the petitioner, herein, had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, directing filing of a joint application by the petitioner, herein, and the respondent no.11, herein, and the State respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with law. The said directions was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner, herein. 14. It is found that the issue was not settled and again the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.7160/2022, claiming her share of the Family Pension, for the services rendered by late Taiyab Ali. The mother of late Taiyab Ali (Tamiyan Bibi) also approached this Court praying for being authorized a proportionate share in the family pension. 15. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court noticing the agreement arrived at between the petitioner, herein, respondent no.11, herein, and the respondent no.12, herein, proceeded vide order dated 14.06.2023, to dispose of the said writ petition, with the following directions ; “(i) The mother of the deceased employee, Viz. Tamiyan Bibi will be entitled to receive 10% of the share of family pension receivable by each of the two widows of the deceased Taiyob Ali, subject to revision of pension from time to time. (ii) The respondent nos.5 and 6 in WP(C)4015/2022 to submit a joint application before the respondent no.3 by enclosing a certified copy of this order with a request to pay 10% of the family pension to the mother of the deceased. (iii) The petitioner in WP(C)4015/2022 will furnish necessary particulars of her bank Page No.# 9/14 account etc. for receiving the amount of 10% from the share of each of the two widows of Md. Taiyob Ali, directly to her bank account.” 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the directions passed by this Court vide the order dated 14.06.2023 in WP(C).No.4015/2022, would require the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, to issue two separate FPPO’s in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no.11, however, he submits that the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, in clear violation of the said directions proceeded to issue one FPPO in favour of the respondent no.11, authorizing to her the entire Family pension, thereby depriving her of legitimate dues. 17. The issue as to whether the second or further wives of a deceased Government employee, who are governed by Mohammedan Law, would also be entitled to the benefits of family pension and if entitled, to whom the family pension would be payable under the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, came to he referred to a full Bench of this Court for decision in the case of Junufa Bibi Vs. Padma Begum (W.A. No.160/2018) . 18. The full Bench of this Court on consideration of the issues referred to it, answered the same vide Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2022 in W.A. No.160/2018 [reported in 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 736]. 19. The conclusion drawn by the full Bench with regard to the issues referred to it being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow ; “21. In the circumstance, the concept of a validity and acceptability of a second 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 Page No.# 10/14 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 Rate 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969, including the second of 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.# 11/14 20. A perusal of the conclusions reached by the full Bench in the case of Junufa Bibi (supra) would reveal that irrespective of the validity and acceptability of a second marriage or further marriage, where the parties are governed by Mohammedan Law, the family pension under Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, would be payable to the eldest surviving widow. It was further held that family pension being payable to the eldest surviving widow, would not mean that the entire family pension so payable would be the personal property of the eldest of the surviving widow, but shall be held by her as a trustee for all such persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of the Rule 143 of the said Rules of 1969. The full Bench also laid down that it would not be permissible to the other claimants, in the event, they are not appropriately maintained by the eldest surviving widow, to approach the State authorities claiming payment of family pension, but required such claimants to institute claims for maintenance before the appropriate forum. 21. Having noticed the decision of the full Bench of this Court in the case of Junufa Biwi (supra), this Court would now examine the contentions of the parties to the present proceedings. 22. The claim made by the petitioner in the present proceedings is based in the directions passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C).No.4015/2022 and WP(C).No.7160/2022, vide order dated 14.06.2023. The directions as passed has been noticed, hereinabove. This Court upon examination of the said direction is of the considered view that the same determines the share of the petitioner, respondent no.11 and the respondent no.12 in the Family Pension and other Pensionary benefits flowing from the services rendered by the deceased employee late Taiyab Ali. The said directions came to be passed basing on the agreement reached by and between the petitioner, herein, and the respondent no.11 and 12, herein. In Page No.# 12/14 absence of a challenge to the said order dated 14.06.2023, the directions passed therein, has attained finality. However, the manner in which the family pension and other retirement benefits involved, is to be released, would in the considered view be governed by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Junufa Biwi (supra) . 23. Applying, the decisions of the full Bench in the case of Junufa Biwi (supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court hold that there being no dispute that the respondent no.11 being the eldest surviving widow of the deceased employee, the Family Pension and other Pensionary Benefits must be authorized to the respondent no.11 by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error in the issuance of the FPPO and GPO both dated 25.11.2024 in favour of the respondent no.11 and the same would mandate no interference from this Court. 24. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court noticing that the respective share receivable of the Family Pension was determined by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed in WP(C).No.4015/2022 and WP(C).No.7160/2022, proceeds to pass the following directions ; (i) The FPPO dated 25.11.2025 and GPO dated 25.11.2025 authorizing the payments involved in favour of the respondent no.11 would mandate no interference. (ii) The respondent no.11 on being released with the family pension in terms of the FPPO dated 25.11.2025 shall within 7 (seven) days of receipt of the amount in her account, transfer 20% thereof in favour of the respondent no.12 in her bank Account bearing no.7150010013129 (IFSC Code PUNBORRBAGB) maintained by her with the Lakhiganj Branch of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank. Page No.# 13/14 (iii) Likewise, the respondent no.11, within a period of 7 (seven) days with effect of deposit of the family pension, in her account, in terms of the FPPO dated 25.11.2025, transfer 40 % thereof, in favour of the petitioner, herein, in her bank Account bearing no.40143001810 (IFSC Code- SBIN0000146 ) maintained by her with the Nagaon Branch of State Bank of India. (iv) The said transfer of family pension by the respondent no.11 in favour of the respondent no.12 and the petitioner, herein, shall be repeated every month, in terms of the directions nos. (ii) and (iii) passed hereinabove. Further, the said directions shall also apply for the arrears of the Family Pension accruing on account of the interim directions passed in the matter. It is clarified that the petitioner being in receipt of her share of Family Pension, the arrears involved are the amounts receivable by the respondent no.12 and the petitioner, herein. (v) The respondent no,11, with regard to the amounts due under the GPO dated 25.11.2025, shall also transfer 20% thereof, in favour of the respondent no.12 and 40%, thereof, in favour of the petitioner, herein, in their respective bank Accounts, set out hereinabove, within 7 (seven) days from the date the amount involved is credited to her account. (vi) In the event, the respondent no.11 refuses to comply with the directions passed, hereinabove, with regard to the manner of sharing of the family pension as well as other pensionary benefits, required to be authorized to her, with the petitioner and/or the respondent no.12, or both, it would be open to the petitioner or the respondent no.12, as the case may be, to institute proceedings before the appropriate forum, claiming maintenance, to the extend of their Page No.# 14/14 respective share in the family pension or other pensionary benefits as determined by this Court, from the respondent no.11. (vii) In the event, either the petitioner and/or the respondent no.12, or both, as the case may be, are required to institute proceedings claiming maintenance from the respondent no.11, it is provided that for securing their interest, it would be open to the petitioner and/or the respondent no.12, to also approach the jurisdictional Treasury Officer as well as the authorities of the Bank wherein the pension account of the respondent no.11 is operated, with a prayer to stop disbursal of the amount to the respondent no.11. It is directed that in the event of such an eventuality arising, the jurisdictional Treasury Officer as well as the Bank authorities, shall take steps for preventing the respondent no.11 from withdrawing the pension and other pensionary benefits credited to her account, till conclusion of the proceedings claiming maintenance instituted by either the petitioner, herein, or the respondent no.12 or both. 25. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant