Continuous Service Without Break Entitles Family To Compassionate Family Pension | Gauhati High Court Quashes Rejection Of Widow’s Claim As Legally Unsustainable
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Assam Single Bench of Justice Suman Shyam held that the widow of a deceased government servant was entitled to receive Compassionate Family Pension (CFP) under the scheme notified by the Government of Assam on 14 September 2017. The Court quashed the rejection order issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), which had denied the pension benefit on the ground that the deceased employee had not completed one year of regular service. The Court directed the authorities to process and release the pension amount within 45 days, with interest applicable in case of delay.
The petitioner is the widow of a deceased government employee who had died in harness on 7 December 2018, leaving behind his wife and two minor daughters. Following his death, the petitioner submitted three representations on 21 February 2019, 8 August 2019, and 17 December 2019 seeking Compassionate Family Pension under the CFP scheme introduced by the Assam Government via notification dated 14 September 2017.
The application for pension was rejected by an order dated 4 November 2020, issued by the Deputy Secretary of BTC. The rejection cited the deceased employee's failure to complete one year of regular service as the reason for ineligibility.
The deceased employee had initially responded to an advertisement dated 5 March 2008 issued by the Central Selection Board, BTC, for Grade-III posts including Junior Assistant/LDA. The advertisement invited candidates already serving on fixed pay in various BTC departments to apply. Following a written test and interview, the name of the petitioner’s husband was listed at Sl. No. 106 as an OBC candidate.
Subsequently, on 28 February 2011, the Joint Commissioner of the Transport Department, BTC, issued an appointment order for 30 candidates including the deceased. He joined as a Junior Assistant on fixed pay in the Transport Department, BTC.
After nearly seven years of continuous service, a notification dated 17 July 2018 was issued by the Additional Principal Secretary, BTC, approving the appointment of seven fixed pay employees to Grade-III posts under the Water Resources Department, Kokrajhar and Baksa districts. The petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Section Assistant in the Executive Engineer’s office, Water Resources Division, Mushalpur, in a regular pay scale of Rs. 14,000 to Rs. 49,000 with grade pay of Rs. 5,600.
He continued in this post until his death on 7 December 2018.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased had been in continuous employment since 28 February 2011 and had fulfilled the requirement of one year of uninterrupted service under the CFP scheme. It was further submitted that the scheme did not require regular service but only continuous service.
Reference was made to Rule 2(e) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, defining a "Government Servant" as any person holding a civil post under the State of Assam. Support was also drawn from the Supreme Court judgment in S.D. Jayaprakash and others vs. Union of India and others.
In response, the State contended that under clause 5.3 of the CFP scheme and related notifications, the benefit was confined to employees who had completed one year of regular service. Reliance was placed on clause (1)(iii)(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 31 October 2017 and Rule 140 and Rule 142 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.
The Court stated that "the scheme has a benevolent object of providing immediate relief to the family members of the deceased employee which had lost the sole bread earner." It held that the eligibility for the CFP benefit must be judged solely by the scheme’s criteria and "not by relying upon any other Rules including the Pension Rules of 1969."
The judgment recorded: "If the intention of the Government was to subjugate the claim of CFP scheme under the Rules of 1969, then in that event, there was nothing preventing the State to amend the said Rules or to make an express provision to such effect in the scheme itself."
It further noted: "This Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned State Counsel to the effect that any claim for payment of CFP will be governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules of 1969."
On the definition of "Government Servant," the Court referred to Rule 2(e) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and stated: "In order to come within the definition of 'Government Servant' it would not be necessary for the employee to be in permanent service under the Government."
The Court held that "since 28/02/2011 till 07/12/2018, the deceased had completed more than 1 (one) year of continuous service without any break." It observed that the appointment as Section Assistant was in continuation of the same selection process initiated by the 2008 advertisement.
"Although late Manik Chandra Ray was on fixed pay till issuance of the notification dated 17/07/2018, yet, for all practical purposes, his appointment vide order dated 28/02/2011 was a regular appointment."
The judgment also stated: "Clause 5.3 of the CFP scheme does not require that the service must be regular. It only requires continuous service without break."
Regarding clause 5.8, the Court observed: "Even those employees who are ineligible to receive pension under the Rules of 1969 will come under the provisions of the scheme, albeit with some modification in the rate of CFP payable."
"This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to the effect that her claim for CFP is covered by the CFP scheme."
The Court quashed the order dated 4 November 2020, holding: "Such being the case, the impugned order dated 04/11/2020 (Annexure P/21) issued by the Deputy Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of CFP on the ground mentioned therein, is held to be bad in law. The same is accordingly set aside."
The Court issued a direction: "The respondents are directed to forthwith process the claim of the petitioner for grant of CFP and release the amount within a period of 45 (forty-five) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
It also stated the consequence of non-compliance: "It is made clear that if the amount, as directed by this court, along with arrear dues, if any, are not released to the writ petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the amount due and payable would carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date on which it had become due, till realization."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.K. Das, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General (Finance), Assam and Standing Counsel, BTC; Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel, Office of the AG (A&E), Assam
Case Title: Manjula Ray Adhikary v. State of Assam & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:7523
Case Number: WP(C)/4491/2021
Bench: Justice Suman Shyam
[Read/Download order]
