JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. I have also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Mr. C. Baruah, learned Counsel representing the Accountant General, Assam. 2. The prayer made in this writ petition is for consideration of the Respondents to provide family pension to the Petitioner, who is the mother of Tafique Ali, who died while in service as Constable on 22.9.1999. 3. The Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the 11th Assam Police Battalion w.e.f. 18.1.1996 and he died on 22.9.1999 while in service. He was appointed pursuant to his selection for such appointment and he was in continuous service till his death on 22.9.1999. 4. Referring to Rules 31 and 140 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, Mr. Mannaf, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the deceased son of the Petitioner having rendered/completed minimum required period of one year of service, she is entitled to receive family pension. On the other hand, Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, referring to the stand of the Respondents in their counter affidavit, submits that the Petitioner is not entitled to receive family pension. The stand in the affidavit is that the son of the Petitioner having died due to illness and not in course of employment and also having rendered only 3 years-8 months-4 days of service, is not entitled to receive pension. However, the said affidavit does not deal with the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, more particularly, the plea of the Petitioner that she is entitled to get consideration under Rules 31 and 140 of the said Rules. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Accountant General, Assam, no opinion has been expressed regarding entitlement or otherwise of family pension by the Petitioner. It has also been stated that since the office has not received any pension proposal, nothing could be done in the matter. In this connection, the affidavit refers to Rule 148 (iii) and (iv) of the aforesaid Pension Rules. 6. The issue is not one of the regular pension on retirement of an incumbent attaining the age of superannuation. It has also been stated that since the office has not received any pension proposal, nothing could be done in the matter. In this connection, the affidavit refers to Rule 148 (iii) and (iv) of the aforesaid Pension Rules. 6. The issue is not one of the regular pension on retirement of an incumbent attaining the age of superannuation. The issue involved is as to whether the mother of the deceased is entitled to receive family pension on account of death of her son, while in service. Be it stated here that the son of the Petitioner died unmarried. 7. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No. 4 to take on record the grievance of the Petitioner and pass appropriate order in reference to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules of 1969. The order to be passed shall deal with the claim of the Petitioner and shall depict as to the entitlement or otherwise to receive family pension. If any consultation is to be made with the employer of the deceased son of the Petitioner, such consultation shall also be made. The said employer shall also provide all assistance to the Respondent No. 4 in arriving at a conclusion in the matter. Depending upon the order to be passed by the Respondent No. 4 in consultation with the Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5, more particularly, the Respondent No. 3, the pension proposal of the Petitioner shall be processed. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 30th April, 2011. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.