Tahanabi Azmin Bora And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Ors

Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010067152025

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1803/2025
TAHANABI AZMIN BORA AND ANR
S/O-LATE SADIDUR RAHMAN,R/O-SANTIPUKHURI,P.O-
SANTIPUKHURI,P.S-SIPAJHAR,DIST-DARRANG,PIN-784144
2: JEESHAN RIZBHI RAHMAN
REP.BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN TAHNABI AZMIN BORA
S/O-LATE SADIDUR RAHMAN
R/O-SANTIPUKHURI
P.O-SANTIPUKHURI
P.S-SIPAJHAR
DIST-DARRANG
PIN-78414
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE (ADMIN).
HEADQUATER-ULUBARI,GUWAHATI,ASSAM,PIN-781007
2:COMMANDANT 13 ASSAMPOLICE BATTALION
LILABARI
LAKHIMPUR
3:COMMANDANT 27 ASSAMPOLICE BATTALION
HEADQUATER-KHAJUABEL
UDALGURI (BTAD)
P.O-KOPATI
PIN-784113 DIST-UDALGURI
4:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
(PBBU) STATE BANK OF INDIA SALARY PACKAGE ACCOUNTS
DEPARTMENT CENTRAL OFFICE 13TH FLOOR CORPORATE CENTRE
STATE BANK BHAWAN MADAME CAMA
ROAD

Page No.# 2/12
NIRMAN POINT MUMBAI
MAHARASTRA-400021
ITS LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT GUWAHATI
ASSAM
5:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PBBU) STATE BANK OF INDIA
G.S ROAD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM. PIN-781006
6:THE GENERAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
CB01 MUMBAI
(GSTIN-27AAACT0627R4ZW) ORIENTAL HOUSE 2ND FLOOR 7 JAMSHEDJI
TATA ROAD CHURCHAGATE MUMBAI
MAHARASTRA-400020
7:THE GENERAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI
GODREJ BUILDING
G.S ROAD
ULUBARI PIN- 781007
8:MD CHAN MAHAMMAD ALIAS SAN MAHAMMAD
S/O- HASSAN ALI
R/O- SANTIPUKHURI
P.O-SANTIPUKHURI
P.S-SIPAJHAR
DIST-DARRANG
PIN- 784144
9:GOLSAHNARA BEGUM
W/O-MD.CHAN MAHAMMAD ALIAS SAN MAHAMMAD
S/O- HASSAN ALI
R/O- SANTIPUKHURI
P.O-SANTIPUKHURI
P.S-SIPAJHAR
DIST-DARRANG
PIN- 78414

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
JUDGMENT

Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. AR Medhi , Advocate

Page No.# 3/12
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S Dutta, Senior Counsel, Oriental
Insurance co. Ltd.,
Ms. DD Barman, GA, Assam,
Mr. K Das, SC, State Bank of India
Mr. G Uddin, Advocate, R. No.8 & 9

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : Open Court Dictation
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 23.06.2026
·
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

Whether the full Judgment has been
·
Pronounced : Yes


JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Heard Mr. AR Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K
Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 4 & 5, Mr. G Uddin,
learned counsel for the respondents no. 8 & 9, Ms. DD Barman, learned State
counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents no. 6 & 7, who has been requested by the Court to
assist the matter on behalf of the Insurance Company, since none had
represented pursuant to the notice being issued.
2. The petitioner no.1 is a widow of late Sadidur Rahman and the petitioner
no.2 is their son. Late Sadidur Rahman was employed under the Assam Police
Battalion. It is submitted that during the tenure of the service of the petitioner,

Page No.# 4/12

the employer, namely, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration)
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the SBI for providing
Personal Accident Insurance Cover to all employees working under the Police
Department . In terms of the insurance cover, in the event of the death of the
primary salary account holder, i.e., the employee, the insurance benefit shall be
payable to the nominee registered in the salary package account of the
deceased, where the account is held in a single name. In so far as the
petitioner’s late husband is concerned, he had a bank account in the State Bank
of India (SBI) opened in single name and the nominee, in so far as the account
is concerned, is, as reflected from the records, is the respondent no. 8, who is
the father of the deceased employee. It is the submission of the learned counsel
to the petitioner that after the demise of her late husband, she staked claims for
the insurance benefits before the Police Department as a beneficiary of her late
husband on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son. The Police
Department, however, declined to release the insurance amount in terms and
conditions of the policy and it was informed that it is only the nominee
registered in the salary package account of the deceased who will be treated to
be the beneficiary for the purpose of the insurance claim. As the name of the
respondent no. 8 is reflected in the bank account of her late husband as the
sole nominee, the claim of the petitioner was not entertained by the respondent

Page No.# 5/12
authorities. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The respondent no. 3 has filed the affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in
paragraph-7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition that as per the service sheet, the
deceased Sadidur Rahman entered the name of his mother, namely, respondent
no. 9, as a nominee in the service sheet. However, after the death of the
employee, his wife, namely, the petitioner no. 1, submitted an application along
with the next-of-kin certificate to the office of the respondent authorities
requesting to enter her name along with her son's name in the service sheet.
On such request and on the basis of the next-of-kin certificate, the name of the
petitioner no. 1 and her son were entered into the service sheet. As per the
agreements made in the affidavit, the payment of leave encashment/ GIS
savings and Insurance total amounting to Rs 5,23,430/- has been drawn and
deposited in the SBI account No.43266489850, which is the account number of
the writ petitioner, vide Bill No.369 dated 25/11/2024 for an amount of
Rs.3,04,545/-, Bill No.370 dated 25/11/2024 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and
Bill no.371 dated 25/11/2024 for an amount of Rs.18,885/-.
4. The SBI authorities have also contested the matter and filed their
affidavit, wherein, at Paragraph- 4, it is stated that in terms of the MoU entered
with the Assam Police on 22.03.2024, all Assam Police Personnel are eligible for

Page No.# 6/12
personal accident insurance, coverage of Rs. 75 lakhs, provided the said police
personnel is having a salary account with SBI and the salary is being credited to
SBI. It is stated that the claim for which insurance benefit has been submitted
by the father of the deceased employee, namely, the respondent no.8, which,
however, is pending for want of certain documents. It is stated that in terms of
the MoU, the insurance benefits is only to be released to the nominee whose
name is reflected as a nominee in the salary account maintained by the
deceased employee. Since the name of the father-in-law of the writ petitioner,
namely, the respondent no.8 is shown to be a nominee in the salary account,
the bank has to release the amount in favour of the nominee in terms of the
MoU executed by and between the parties. It is further submitted that in terms
of the Clause 10 of the MOU dated 22.03.2024, all the relevant correspondences
including the claims made on behalf of the deceased police personnel will be
forwarded to the Insurance Company, namely, the Oriental Insurance Company
and thereafter, the claim settlement will be entirely the responsibility of the
Insurance Company and the bank will have no liability towards any claim of
dispute or continuation of the insurance benefits in respect of the policy holder.
5. It is submitted that all correspondence pertaining to the claims made by
the deceased police personnel has been forwarded to the Oriental Insurance
Company and ultimately, it is insurance company who had to settle the claims of

Page No.# 7/12
late Sadidur Rahman.
6. Mr. S Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance
Company submits that the terms of the Insurance Company is very clear and
there is no dispute that the amount has to be released to the nominee of the
deceased employee and as per the records, the name of the nominee of the
deceased employee is the respondent no.8. He, however, submits that any claim
with regard to any other stake holders who claim to be legal heirs will have to
be made as per the procedure prescribed under the law. So far as the contract
agreement /MOU is concerned, the benefits is required to be availed by the
nominee whose name is reflected in the bank account.
7. Mr. G Uddin, learned counsel for the respondents no. 8 & 9 submits that
in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents no.8 & 9 it is clearly
mentioned in Paragraph-7 & 8 that in so far as the policy is concerned, it is the
father of the deceased whose name has been shown as a nominee and the
deceased employee’s mother is shown as the nominee in the salary account. It
is submitted that from the records it is clear that the deceased son wanted to
keep the parents as nominee even after his marriage and he had submitted
these particular before the employer. It is submitted that since there is already
nominee specified, there is no question of the writ petitioners claiming the

Page No.# 8/12
amount and the same has to be released to the nominee specified. Mr. G Uddin,
however, on instructions submits that he is willing to share 50% of the amount
with the writ petitioner subject to such concurrent of the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance of the Apex Court
rendered in Smt. Sarabati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi reported in (1984) 1
SCC 424. In terms of the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that mere nomination will not have the effect conferring the nominee
any beneficial interest of amount payable under the Life Insurance Policy of the
death of the assured, as the nominee only indicates the hand who is authorized
to receive the amount. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the
assured in accordance with law of succession governing them. It is submitted
that as per the Muslim Personal Law, the petitioner, being the widow of a
government employee, is entitled to 1/8 of the total share and the parents of
the deceased employee, namely, the respondents no. 8 & 9 are entitled to 1/6
share each and the remaining portion to be given to the son. He, therefore,
submits that if the respondents no. 8 & 9 agree to share the amount of
insurance benefits in the ratio as prescribed under the Muslim Personal Law, the
petitioner has no difficulty in accepting the same.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties

Page No.# 9/12
and taking into consideration the pleadings available on records and also the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarabati Devi (supra), it appears
before the Court that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents
no. 8 & 9 is with regard to the claims of the Insurance Policy. The deceased
employee as also the petitioner and the respondents no. 8 & 9 belong to the
Mohammadan community and it is submitted that they governed by the Muslim
Personal Law under which the claims of the widow of the deceased will be 1/8,
the claims of the parents will be 1/6 each and the balance would be available
for the son. This claim, however, has admittedly not been made by the
petitioner, as on date, before the competent court having jurisdiction to
entertain claims under the law of succession as well as Muslim Personal Law.
The apprehension expressed by the petitioner no.1 is that if the entire amount
is not released in favour of the writ petitioner no.1 then it may affect her claim
to the said amount . The agreement executed by and between the Police
Department and the SBI has been carefully perused. As per the MoU available in
the affidavit filed by the SBI, it is clearly mentioned therein that the claims
regarding the Insurance Policy are to be submitted directly to the Insurance
Company and the settlement and the dispute between the claimant and the
Insurance Company are to be settled by the Insurance Company. The Bank is
not generally made a party to resolve such disputes.

Page No.# 10/12
10. The general guidelines annexed to the policy state that, in the event of
the death of the primary salary account holder, the beneficiary shall be the
nominee recorded in the salary account of the deceased. From the pleadings it
is seen that the dispute is between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.8
regarding the share of insurance package which was subscribed to the deceased
employee in terms of the MoU. The claims made by the petitioners in terms of
the Law of Succession and the Muslim Personal Law will have to be determined
vis a vis the claims made by the respondents no. 8 & 9 by the competent Court
having jurisdiction in such matter. Considering that such matter will require
adducing proper evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a matter
which will be dealt by the Writ Court as there are likely to be disputed question
of facts and the requirement of adducing proper evidence will have to be taken
recourse to by the Court before arriving at a conclusion regarding the inter se
claim of the writ petitioners and the respondent no.8 and 9 in terms of the Law
of Succession and the Muslim Personal Law. While it has to be accepted that
mere reflection of the name of the person as a nominee will not disentitle other
claimant otherwise entitled as per the Muslim Personal law or the Law of
Succession, the fact remains that the claims of the petitioners under the
respective law vis a vis the claim of the respondent no.8 & 9 will have to be
determined by the competent court of jurisdiction. As on date, the petitioners

Page No.# 11/12
have not taken recourse to such proceedings. During the course of hearing it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on instructions, they
are taking steps to pursue their clams before the Competent Court of
jurisdiction in respect of the claims made under the Law of Succession and the
Muslim Personal Law. If that be so, then the claims of the writ petitioner vis a
vis the claims of the private respondents no. 8 & 9 will have to be left to be
determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of the procedure
prescribed under the provisions of law applicable.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction to
determine the rights of the writ petitioners in respect of the claims made
without there being any proper materials before the Court and without adducing
proper evidence. However, disposal of the writ petition will not act as a bar for
the petitioners to approach the competent court and stake claims in terms of
the Muslim Personal Law and Law of Successions. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that they would take immediate steps to pursue their
claims before the competent Court.
12. Under such circumstances, since the amount of insurance claimed has
not yet been disbursed, the writ petition stands closed, directing the respondent
authorities, more particularly, the Oriental Insurance Company as well as the

Page No.# 12/12
State bank of India Authorities not to disburse the claims of the late husband of
the writ petitioner no.1, namely, late Sadidur Rahman for a period of 30 (thirty)
days or untill such order is passed by the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if
the petitioners approach such forum.
13. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant