JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. Late Jibeswar Saikia, Constable No. 689 in the 11th AP Bn. Was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence from his duties w.e.f. 19.08.1997 to 15.11.2000. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the wife of late Jibeswar Saikia for issuance of a direction to the Respondent authorities to pay the arrear subsistence allowance and other financial benefits like ex-gratia, GPF, GIS, etc. to the legal heirs of her deceased husband and also for setting aside the order of the dismissal of the Petitioner's husband and for payment of the subsistence allowance and other consequential financial benefits on behalf of her husband. 4. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition in short are as follows : The husband of the Petitioner late Jibeswar Saikia was a constable in the 11th Assam Police Battalion, Dergoan, District, Golaghat. He was dismissed from service on 15.11.2000 for unauthorised absence from his duties w.e.f. 19.08.1997 to 15.11.2000. 5. The husband of the Petitioner died an unnatural death on 16.08.2003 by committing suicide. But prior to his death, the husband of the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.3.2000, for unauthorised absence from his duties and after his suspension, a show cause notice was issued and on completion of the departmental enquiry, he was found to be guilty of the charge of unauthorised absence and gross indiscipline and accordingly, he was dismissed from service. 6. The Respondent-State Govt. has also contested the case by filing affidavit in opposition. 7. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by drawing the attention of the Court to the statement made by the Respondent in the affidavit submitted that due to failure of the husband of the Petitioner to furnish a certificate that he was not engaged in any other employment/profession/business during the period of suspension, the subsistence allowance could not be paid to the Petitioner's husband during his life time. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that since all the certificates are ready and available, the Petitioner may be allowed to furnish such certificates so that the Respondent authorities may consider the payment of legally admissible subsistence allowance to the Petitioner. 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that since all the certificates are ready and available, the Petitioner may be allowed to furnish such certificates so that the Respondent authorities may consider the payment of legally admissible subsistence allowance to the Petitioner. 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that though a prayer was made for appointment of the Petitioner in the Department on compassionate ground but considering the lapse of time from the date of death of the husband, now the Petitioner do not desire to press her prayer to accommodate the Petitioner in the scheme of compassionate appointment. 9. The learned Govt. Advocate in their affidavit it has been indicated that the scheme of compassionate appointment is not available for those employees, who are dismissed from service since the scheme of compassionate appointment is available, to the family members of the deceased, only when a Government servant dies-in-harness. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a widow having four daughters and a son to support who are all dependant on her for subsistence and education. 11. Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the writ petition may now be disposed of by allowing the writ Petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent authority to reconsider the punishment of removal from service imposed on her husband by reducing it to compulsory retirement from service and consequential relief so that the family members of the deceased constable may avail minimum pensionary benefits to eke out a living. 12. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the relief claimed by the Petitioner as aforesaid, the learned State Counsel has submitted that he has no objection, if the Petitioner proposes to submit a representation for reduction of the punishment imposed on her husband by the authority concerned. In the event of filing such representation the authority concerned shall examine the representation in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this writ petition by allowing the Petitioner to submit representation before the authority concerned for reduction of punishment imposed on the Petitioner's husband with consequential relief. In the event of filing such representation the authority concerned shall examine the representation in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this writ petition by allowing the Petitioner to submit representation before the authority concerned for reduction of punishment imposed on the Petitioner's husband with consequential relief. In the event of filing such application by the Petitioner as aforesaid, the concerned authority shall consider and dispose of such representation within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order together with the said representation. 14. Further, the Respondent authorities are also directed to consider payment of admissible subsistence allowance of the husband of the Petitioner, which was legally due to him during the period of his suspension from service after due compliance of the official formalities, in terms of the relevant rules governing payment of subsistence allowance. 15. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.