JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---The petitioner is an age old widow, who has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, praying to quash the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 31-1-1989 denying family pension to the petitioner and further seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to sanction and release family pension to the petitioner. 2.The petitioner's husband was serving with the respondent No. 2 at Naldurg prior to 1-8-1984. He however, died on 13-9-1984. It is submitted by the petitioner that he died while he was in service. Therefore, after his death, the petitioner is eligible for family pension. In this context, the petitioner relies upon the Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984 (Exhibit "A" to the petition paper book), which provides for grant of family pension to widow of the Government Servant who retired/died prior to January, 1964. 3.In this context, the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made an application on 28-9-1998 to the District Judge - respondent No. 2, under the provisions contained in the Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984. The petitioner was asked to furnish further particulars. The petitioner also complied with the same. However, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 31-1-1989, informing that her request was not considered as the case of the husband of the petitioner is not covered under the Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984. It was also informed that she was not entitled to pension as her husband was found absent from the duties from 1-8-1948 and enquiry was initiated against him. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. 4.In the first place, we may mention that, so far as the record of this Court is concerned, there is no affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, though Shri Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that reply was filed as per the directions of this Court on 2-2-1998. Apart from that, we heard Shri Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 5.Shri Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterates the fact that the petitioner's husband was absent from duties with effect from 1-8-1948 and enquiry was initiated against him. It is however, not known, whether order of dismissal or termination of services of the petitioner's husband was ever passed. There is no reason not to accept the statement made by widow of the petitioner, that her husband has died on 13-9-1948, while he was in service. It is however, not known, whether order of dismissal or termination of services of the petitioner's husband was ever passed. There is no reason not to accept the statement made by widow of the petitioner, that her husband has died on 13-9-1948, while he was in service. There is therefore, absolutely, no reason to deny benefit of family pension to the petitioner, to which she is entitled under the Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984. 6.It may be stated that under the said Government Resolution, the family pension is allowed to a widow of a Government Servant who has expired prior to 1-11-1956, while in service in any of the areas of those States which form part of the territory of bilingual Bombay State on 1-11-1956 and has continued to be the part of the Maharashtra State on 1-5-1960 and died prior to 1-11-1956. Therefore, in absence of any record, contrary to the statement of the petitioner that her husband has died while in service, after he was on leave with effect from 1-8-1948, must be accepted without any hesitation. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to grant of family pension under the Government Resolution dated 16-4-1984. 7.Writ petition is therefore, allowed. The order/decision of the respondent No. 2 dated 31-1-1989 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to sanction and release the family pension to the petitioner, as per Rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ. 8.Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.