AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to pay the family
pension of (L) Probin D. Shira to the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that (L) Probin D. Shira, husband of the petitioner was working as police constable in the office of Superintendent
of Police, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. He retired on 30th June, 1991 and after retirement, he got married with the petitioner on 14th
November, 2007. Thereafter, (L) Probin D. Shira expired on 09th December, 2009.
It is stated that the petitioner made a representation dated 25th June, 2015 to the respondents for grant of family pension but the respondents
ignored the said representation. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 14th February, 2017 and requested the respondents to pay the family
pension to the petitioner but to no effect. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to family pension in view of the law laid down by this
Court in the case titled as ''Smti Nanji T. Sangma vs State of Meghalaya'' bearing WP(C) No. 283 of 2014 decided on 20th October, 2016.
Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appears on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Mr. R. Debnath, learned counsel appears on behalf of
respondents No. 4 and 5.
Learned for respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 also submits that the family pension is admissible to the petitioner as per the amended notification
dated 4th November, 2010 and the respondents will process the case of the petitioner. Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for respondents No. 1,
2, 3 and 6 submits that she has filed her affidavit along with letter issued by the Government No. HPL. 106/2017/80, dated 12th April, 2017
signed by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Home (Police) Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition can be disposed of at this
stage itself.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for respondents as well as the No
objection/affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition at this stage itself
as submitted by learned counsel for both the parties. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension
as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6.
The writ petition stands disposed of.