JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 as well as Mr. A. Chetri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner's case is that she is the only unmarried daughter of late Altaf Uddin Ahmed. Her father was appointed as Assistant Honorary Teacher in Alomganj M.E. School w.e.f. 01.01.1977. 3. The petitioner's further case is that the departmental approval was given vide VEE-71/86/1740-42 dated 31.03.1986. The petitioner thereafter, retired as on 30.09.1993. The case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 10.03.1994 the petitioner's father's service was confirmed in the post of Assistant teacher w.e.f. 01.09.1993 in Alomganj M.E. School. The petitioner's father expired on 17.12.2010. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that on the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother applied for family pension but she was not paid the family pension. The petitioner's mother also expired on 05.04.2011. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the family pension due to her father and mother. However, as she was not given the arrear pensionary benefits of her father w.e.f. 30.09.1993, she had filed the present writ petition praying that the pensionary benefits should be paid to her along with the arrear pensionary benefits. 6. The petitioner's counsel submits that as her father's service was confirmed on 10.03.1994 w.e.f. 01.09.1993, the petitioner's father was entitled to pensionary benefits. The petitioner's counsel also submits that the petitioner's father was allowed to draw the benefit from Savings Fund Scheme under the State Govt. Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1982 for the period from 01.01.1985 to 30.09.1993 vide order dated 07.05.1994 issued by the respondent No. 4. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the proviso to Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 should be made applicable to the case of the petitioner as it is construed that his qualifying years of service is less than the required number of years as per the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 8. Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 is reproduced below: "31. 8. Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 is reproduced below: "31. The service of an office does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions- Firstly, the service must be under Government; Secondly, the employment must be substantive and permanent; Thirdly, the service must be paid the Government; Provided that the Governor may, even though either or both conditions (1) and (2) above are not fulfilled,- (i) declare that any specified kind of service rendered in a non-gazetted capacity shall qualify for pension, and (ii) in individual cases and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in each case allow service rendered by an officer to count for pension." 9. Mr. Deka, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 has submitted that the petitioner's deceased father was appointed as an Additional teacher on an honorary basis and that his service was never regularised by the competent authorities. It is the contention of the respondent's counsel that the confirmation of the petitioner's service w.e.f. 01.09.1993 was made to enable the petitioner's father to receive retirement/death benefit of incumbent serving on an honorary basis. 10. Mr. Deka, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 also submits that as the petitioner's father was allowed pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.10.1985 and since he retired from service in 01.09.1993, he has rendered less than 10 years of qualifying service, thereby making him ineligible for pension. 11. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen that the petitioners' father's service was confirmed w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and as he had retired on 01.10.1993, the service confirmation was for a period of only one month and also the petitioner's father had been given pay and allowances only w.e.f. 01.10.1985, thereby rendering less than 10 years of qualifying service. As the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 does not envisage payment of pension to employees having less than 10 years of qualifying service, I find that the petitioner has no right to claim pension as he does not have the requisite qualifying years of service. I am also of the view that Rule 31 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 cannot be applied to the Honorary Service period of the petitioner's father. 12. In that view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.