RINA KALITA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS

Heard Mr. S.J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the Elementary Education

Department as well as Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the Director of Pension and Mr. A. Hasan, learned counsel for the Accountant

Department.

The husband of the petitioner Prafulla Kalita who was working as the Head Teacher of 230/1 No. Barbhaluki Lower Primary School died on

14.03.2017. It is stated that the petitioner was the first wife of Prafulla Kalita, whereas, the respondent No.8 was the second wife, whom he had

married during the subsistence of the marriage with the first wife.

The petitioner is aggrieved to the extent that on the death of Prafulla Kalita, the pensionary benefits are being paid to the second wife, being the

respondent No.8, ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner, who was the first wife. To that extent, there is also a communication by the Sub-

Inspector of Bajali Block addressed to the BEEO, Bajali Block which states that Prafulla Kalita had married for the second time in the year 2000

and had nominated his second wife being the respondent No.8 for his pensionary benefit, and therefore, the second wife is presently enjoying the

pensioanry benefit.

The communication also states that the petitioner is having financial difficulty and she is also not in a state to perform any hard work as she has a

fracture in one of her legs. Be that as it may, under the customary law to which Prafulla Kalita was subjected to a second marriage during the

subsistence of the first marriage, is impermissible under the law. In the circumstance, the matter for consideration would be as to whether a second

marriage was a valid marriage and whether the nomination of the second wife to be the beneficiary for the pensionary benefit would disentitle the

first wife. As the matter involves payment of family pension to the petitioner who is in dire financial state, this Court deems it appropriate that the

ends of justice will be met if the Director of Pension gives a due consideration to the claim of the petitioner for the family pension.

As this petition is being finally disposed of without issuing notice, it is provided that the Director of Pension while giving consideration shall issue

notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.8 and give both of them an opportunity of hearing to present their respective cases. Upon

undertaking such exercise, the Director of Pension shall pass reasoned order as to the entitlement of the petitioner for the family pension in respect

of her husband Prafulla Kalita.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition

stands disposed of.