JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 Zilla Parishad, Nanded to pay family pension to the petitioner, as her husband had served with the respondents from 1945 to 1970. 2. The petitioner claims to be widow of one Sk. Ahmed who was appointed as a peon in Government Hospital at Mukhed, District Nanded on 14th May, 1945. According to the petitioner, her husband worked with the respondents till he died on 3rd February, 1970. 3. Rule was issued in the petition and today it has been called out for final hearing. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Zilla Parishad respondent No. 2 as well as by the State Government respondent No. 1. 4. In affidavit of the Zilla Parishad, it was stated that so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the husband of the petitioner worked from 21st July, 1958 to 3rd September, 1963 i.e. for a period of five years one month and twelve days. It is further stated that before that, the petitioner's husband was serving with the State Government from 14th June, 1945 to 20th July, 1958. So far as that period is concerned, the petitioner's husband was not entitled for pensionary benefits from Zilla Parishad and such benefits could be claimed only from State authorities. Regarding service with Zilla Parishad, it was contended that since it was for five years one month and twelve days, the deceased was not entitled to pensionary benefits. 5. In the affidavit of the State Government, nothing is mentioned with regard to the appointment of the petitioner's husband in 1945 nor the fact as to when the deceased left the service of the State or was allocated to Zilla Parishad. Looking to the annexures to the affidavit in reply of respondent No. 2, prima facie, it appears that husband of the petitioner was appointed in 1945. In this connection, our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to Exh. R-2 in which it was stated that the husband of the petitioner was born on 7th October, 1922 and was appointed initially on 14th May, 1945. It is also clear that he entered the service of the Zilla Parishad on 21st August, 1958 and he actually worked till 3rd September, 1963. R-2 in which it was stated that the husband of the petitioner was born on 7th October, 1922 and was appointed initially on 14th May, 1945. It is also clear that he entered the service of the Zilla Parishad on 21st August, 1958 and he actually worked till 3rd September, 1963. Various columns of service book show that from 4th September, 1963 to 31st January, 1964 the deceased was absent. 6. In the light of the above record, it clearly appears to us that the assertion of the petitioner that her husband entered service in 1945 is indeed well founded. It is also based on documentary evidence which has been produced by the respondent No. 2. It must, therefore, be held that the husband of the petitioner entered service in 1945. It is also clear that from 1958 to 1963, the deceased worked with respondent No. 2. Even thereafter, he was absent for sometime from September, 1963 upto January, 1964. Even before that, the deceased was serving with the State Authorities. 7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed with the direction to both the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and decide her claim for family pension on the basis of the available service record of the deceased. Let such a decision be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from today. 8. We may clarify that if the claim is proved to be well founded by both the respondents or one of the respondents, family pension would be paid to the person who is entitled to such benefit. It is open to the respondent authorities to consider the claim put forward by the petitioner or any other person, and the said benefit may be extended to such person. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----