ORDER : M.R. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma along with Mr. A Chairman, learned counsels for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017. Also heard Mr. B Kaushik, learned Standing counsel, Higher Education for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Standing counsel for the Accountant General (A & E), Assam for the respondent No. 3, Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Government Advocate for the Directorate of Pension, Assam respondent No. 4 and Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017, heard Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel, Higher Education, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel for the Accountant General (A & E), respondent No. 4 and Mr. C.P. Sarma along with Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsels for the respondent No. 7. 3. Petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 as well as the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017 have filed the writ petitions claiming for Family Pension and other Pensionary benefits for the death of Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, who died-in-harness on 20.12.2011. 4. Said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, was a regular Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science in Kharupetia College of Darrang District, Assam whose service was provincialised w.e.f. 01.12.2005, when said College was brought under provincialisation under the provisions of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005. 5. At the time of his death said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, left behind his wife, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta [petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017], his mother Smti. Nalini Dutta [petitioner No. 1 in WP(C) No. 5039/2017] and his son Sri Abhigyan Dutta [petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017]. Though his father Laxmi Prasad Dutta, Retired Principal of Dalgaon Higher Secondary School was alive at the time of his death, but he died later. 6. Said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, being an Assistant Professor in a provincialised College was a Government employee and on his death, his family members claimed the benefit of pension under the provisions of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969. 7. As the issues involved in the two writ petitions are same and as agreed by the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final consideration. In W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017-- 8. Petitioner herein, Smti. 7. As the issues involved in the two writ petitions are same and as agreed by the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final consideration. In W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017-- 8. Petitioner herein, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta is the wife of Late Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta and is the daughter-in-law of Smti. Nalini Dutta and mother of Sri Abhigyan Dutta, i.e. respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in this petition who are the petitioners of the connected W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017. 9. The petitioner herein, being the wife of the deceased, has prayed for writ of mandamus, order and necessary direction to the respondents herein to release the family pension to her on the death of her husband with all consequential Pensionary benefits and for realizing all other financial benefits such as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Leave Encashment Benefit, Provident Fund amount and Arrear Salary standing in the credit of her late husband and in the interim she prayed to grant her provisional family pension so as to get immediate relief. 10. She stated that she filed application before the College authority on 05.03.2012 claiming family pension but it was not released. On 23.03.2015 the petitioner again claimed for family pension before the College authority and submitted relevant documents putting her signatures in various forms and indemnity bond in favour of the Director of Higher Education, Assam. She also submitted application before the Treasury Officer, Darrang, Mangaldoi to release the arrear pay amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- to her that was payable to her late husband. 11. Petitioner submitted that she had to leave her matrimonial home on 16.11.2008 due to compelling situation as she was driven out by her in-laws, who also obstructed from taking the minor son along with her and for such incidents she had filed criminal case against them. It is also stated that before filing this writ petition, her father-in-law, retired Principal of Dalgaon Higher Secondary School, expired few months back and that it is her mother-in-law who is drawing family pension of her father-in-law. 12. By filing an additional affidavit on 21.05.2018, the petitioner placed before the Court that since November, 2017, she has been diagnosed with Sub-epithelial Fibrosis and Vascular Dilatation and had to undergo surgery on 24.01.2018 for operation of Hemorrhoids and Anal Stricture diagnosis as gross Anal Stricture with 2nd degree Hemorrhoids (Intero External). 12. By filing an additional affidavit on 21.05.2018, the petitioner placed before the Court that since November, 2017, she has been diagnosed with Sub-epithelial Fibrosis and Vascular Dilatation and had to undergo surgery on 24.01.2018 for operation of Hemorrhoids and Anal Stricture diagnosis as gross Anal Stricture with 2nd degree Hemorrhoids (Intero External). To that extent the petitioner has annexed all her medical documents. 13. In her additional affidavit, petitioner also stated that her son Abhigyan Dutta was born on 12.02.2000 and he has attained the age of majority in February, 2018 and that her mother-in-law Smti. Nalini Dutta filed Guardianship Case before the Court of learned District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi being No. 02/2016 for guardianship of her grandson, said Sri Abhigyan Dutta. 14. Petitioner stated that she approached the authority concerned for her family pension and other pensionary benefits on many occasions and also submitted the 'Certificate of Next of Kin' of said Late Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metropolitan District) vide Certificate No. 28122051-001-00067924 dated 28.12.2015 wherein she was shown to be the wife of the deceased and Sri Abhigyan Dutta as his minor son aged about 15 years. 15. As her all approach went in vein and family pension as well as other pensionary benefits were not released to her, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 31.7.2017. In W.P.(C) 5039/2017-- 16. In this writ petition, petitioner No. 1 is the mother and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of the deceased Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, where respondent No. 7 is the wife of the said deceased (petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017). During his life time, Laxmi Prasad Dutta, husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the deceased on 02.06.2015 claimed before the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Assam for pensionary benefits, arrear amount and other service benefits of his late son Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta for maintenance and education of his grandson, petitioner No. 2 as well as for himself and his wife, petitioner No. 2. But the authorities of Accountant General (A & E), Assam vide letter No. PEN-2/Misc./PC/Darrang/2015/OW/669 dated 01.07.2015 informed said Laxmi Prasad Dutta that as per the provisions of Rule 143, Sub Para (iii) of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 it is not payable to more than one member of an officer's family, which is admissible to the widow/widower and thereafter to minor children. 17. The petitioners stated that respondent No. 7 left her matrimonial home in the year 2008 and since then she is living separately in her paternal home, leaving her husband and minor son and also received maintenance from the deceased. It is also stated that she illegally obtained the 'Certificate of Next of Kin' without disclosing name of the parents of the deceased for which the petitioner No. 1 filed complaint against her before the concerned Deputy Commissioner, who issued the same. 18. Petitioners herein prayed for family pension and all other service benefits like DCRG, Provident Fund amount, Leave Salary, Group Insurance Scheme amount in equal share between them and the respondent No. 7 (petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017) being the legal heirs and successors of the deceased Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta and also to set aside and quash the communication of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam dated 01.07.2015 noted above. 19. The Director of Higher Education, Assam filed an affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 and submitted that though the Principal of Kharupetia College is duty bound to move for family pension to the 'Next of Kin' of the deceased but the College authority could not process the proposal of family pension of the petitioner of said writ petition, as her father-in-law, i.e. father of the deceased Laxmi Prasad Dutta, during his life time, submitted representation for the pensionary benefit of his deceased son. 20. The DHE, Assam in his affidavit also submitted that after receiving the proposal for family pension of the petitioner from Kharupetia College by its communication dated 01.08.2016; the same was forwarded to the Accountant General, Assam and requested the said authority to release the same. 21. The DHE, Assam also stated that in the meanwhile the mother of the deceased Smti. 21. The DHE, Assam also stated that in the meanwhile the mother of the deceased Smti. Nalini Dutta, respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 submitted a representation before him on 04.04.2016 stating that his son Late Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, Assistant Professor of Kharupetia College, died prematurely and left behind his old aged ailing parents, father Laxmi Parsad Dutta and his mother, applicant herself and his only son, a minor, Abhigyan Dutta, aged about 15 years. Said respondent in her representation also stated that son of the said deceased, who is her grandson is living with them since 2008 and he never wished to live with his mother, the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017, who is living separately since 2008. The said respondent through her said representation dated 04.04.2016 has also claimed for family pension, provident fund amount, death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment benefit, arrear salary and other service benefits of her deceased son. The DHE stated that in her said representation, she stated that being the mother and son of the deceased and his dependants and successors, they are entitled to such pensionary benefits and therefore, prayed to release the same to her forthwith. 22. Subsequently, by a letter dated 30.03.2017, the DHE, Assam informed the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017, wife of the deceased that she is required to submit Succession Certificate with regard to her claim for family pension to the said Directorate at the earliest for taking further course towards payment of the same to her, pursuant to which she again submitted a representation along with said 'Certificate of Next of Kin' before him on 15.05.2017 including an affidavit sworn before the Notary at Kamrup, Guwahati. 23. In the said affidavit, the DHE, Assam also stated that said respondent No. 7, mother of the deceased in her said representation further stated that Guardianship Case No. 02/2016 regarding the guardianship of minor son of the deceased, Abhigyan Dutta that was preferred by her is pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi and that she had already filed an objection on 20.09.2016 before the authority concerned with regard to the 'next of kin' Certificate dated 18.12.2018 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to the petitioner. 24. By order dated 18.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 this Court directed the petitioner to take dasti/personal service on the respondent Nos. 24. By order dated 18.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 this Court directed the petitioner to take dasti/personal service on the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Kharupetia College and its Principal respectively, pursuant to which the petitioner on 23.12.2017 served notice upon them, which was duly acknowledged by the Principal of Kharupetia College and thereafter, the petitioner on 27.12.2017 filed an affidavit towards completion of such dasti/personal service on the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. However, the said two respondents did not appear in this matter. 25. Pursuant to the order of the Court, Mrs. D. Das Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam on instruction from the Directorate of Pension, Assam, communicated by its letter dated 21.05.2018 placed before the Court that Mrs. Nalini Dutta, wife of Late Laxmi Prasad Dutta, Retired Principal of Dalgaon Higher Secondary School (respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 and petitioner No. 1 in WP(C) No. 5039/2017) is receiving Family Pension as follows: (i) Rs. 4,863/- p.m. w.e.f. 31.10.2005, (ii) Rs. 2,918/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.11.2005 to 30.09.2007, (iii) Rs. 6,600/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2016 and (iv) Rs. 16,370/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.4.2016. 26. Mrs. Barman, learned Government on instruction further submitted that Mrs. Anjali Sarma Dutta, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017, whose deceased husband worked as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science in Kharupetia College, Darrang, Assam has not been paid the regular family pension after the premature death of her husband and that pension matters in respect of College Employees are dealt by the Principal Accountant General, (A & E), Assam and not by the Directorate of Pension, Assam. 27. Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 as well as the respondent No. 7 of W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017 relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court in the cases of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in [ (1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409 ], Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 229 and Mala Kalita Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) GLT 79. 28. Mr. AR Shome, learned counsel for the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017 and respondent Nos. State of Bihar, reported in [ (1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409 ], Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 229 and Mala Kalita Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) GLT 79. 28. Mr. AR Shome, learned counsel for the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017 and respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017, i.e. mother of the deceased Assistant Professor and the son of the said deceased in support of his claim relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 : (1971) 2 SCC 330 (Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar), 1984 (Supp) SCC 410 (Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar), AIR 1988 SC 2255 : (1989) 1 SCC 175 (Union of India Vs. Somasundaram Viswanath), (2000) 2 SCC 431 (Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar), (2013) 12 SCC 210 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava), [2011 (4) GLT 751] (Sirazun Nessa Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and an unreported Judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2002 passed in WP (C) No. 4236/2000 (Smti. Pakhila Khataniar & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.). 29. Submissions of the learned counsels are heard and the judgments cited by them are considered. 30. Though Mrs. Anjali Sharma Dutta, petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017, lived separately from her husband Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, Assistant Professor of Kharupetia College and their son Abhigyan Dutta since 16.11.2008. But it is a fact that there was no divorce between them during his life time and she received maintenance from her said husband and it is not disputed by either of the parties. 31. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the Guardianship Case No. 02/2016 that was preferred by Smti. Nalini Dutta, wife of Late Laxmi Prasad Dutta, (respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 and petitioner No. 1 in WP(C) No. 5039/2017) under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for guardianship of Sri Abhigyan Dutta (respondent No. 8 in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 and petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017), son of Late Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta and Smti. Anjali Sharma Dutta was dismissed by order dated 05.04.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi being infructuous and not maintainable, as in the meanwhile the minor (Sri Abhigyan Dutta), for whose benefit the said petition for guardianship was filed, attained majority on 12.02.2018. 32. It is also a fact that Smti. Anjali Sharma Dutta, wife of late Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, was diagnosed with Gross Anal Stricture with 2nd Degree Hemorrhoids (intero external) and that she had undergone surgery for Hemorrhoids and Anal Stricture. This fact is also not in dispute. 33. In the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have reiterated the decision of an another Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranojirao Shinde reported in AIR 1968 SC 1053 where the question whether a "cash grant" is property within the meaning of the expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 was decided observing that "it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property". 34. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (supra) while holding that right to receive pension by a Government servant is property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India, at the same time also held that the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the State; but on the other hand, payment of pension is governed by the Rules and a Government servant coming within the Rules is entitled to claim pension. 35. In the cases in hand, said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, Assistant Professor of a provincialised college, was an employee under the Government of Assam and his pension matter is governed by the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which was framed by the Government of Assam in its Finance Department. 36. Rule 9 of said 1969 Rules stipulates 'Pension' and it reads as "Except when the term "Pension" is used in contradiction to Gratuity, "Pension" includes Gratuity and Death cum Retirement Gratuity". 37. 36. Rule 9 of said 1969 Rules stipulates 'Pension' and it reads as "Except when the term "Pension" is used in contradiction to Gratuity, "Pension" includes Gratuity and Death cum Retirement Gratuity". 37. Chapter VIII, Section-TV of said 1969 Pension Rules relates to Family Pension Scheme, 1964 of a Government employee of the State, which is in force and for Family Pension, Rule 143 of said 1969 Rules defines 'Family' as follows:- 143. (i) Family for the purpose of rules in this Section will include the following relatives of the officer- (a) Wife, in the case of male officer; (b) Husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) Minor son's and (d) Unmarried minor daughters. Note 1:(c) and (d) mentioned in said Rule 143(i) will include children adopted legally before retirement Note 2:(a) Marriage for the purpose of admissibility of pensionary benefits to the spouse of a retired official shall mean marriage before or after retirement. (b) Child/Children for the purpose of pensionary benefits of a retired official shall mean child/children born before or after retirement. 38. Rule 143(ii) of said 1969 Pension Rules indicates to whom such Pension is admissible which are as follows: (a) In the case of widow/widower up to the date of her/his death or re-marriage whichever is earlier. (b) In the case of a minor son, until he attains the age of 18 years. (c) In the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 21 years or marriage whichever is earlier. Note 1:In cases where there are two or more widows, pension will be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. The term 'eldest' would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. 39. Sub-Rules (iii), (iv) and (v) of Rule 143 of said 1969 Pension Rules reads as follows: Rule 143: (iii) Pension awarded under the rules in this section will not be payable to more than one member of an officer's Family at the same time. It will first be admissible to the widow/widower and thereafter to the minor children. (iv) In the event of re-marriage or death of the widow/widower, the Pension will be granted to the minor children through their natural guardian. In disputed cases, however, payments will be made through a legal guardian. It will first be admissible to the widow/widower and thereafter to the minor children. (iv) In the event of re-marriage or death of the widow/widower, the Pension will be granted to the minor children through their natural guardian. In disputed cases, however, payments will be made through a legal guardian. (v) The temporary increases granted on Pension will not be admissible on the Family Pension granted under the Scheme in this Section. 40. Chapter-VIII, Section II, consists of Sections 135 and 136 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 that relates to 'Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity' (DCRG). Rule 135 provides for DCRG to the Government employee who dies while in service or Government Pensioners who dies within five years of retirement, either by making a nomination (nominee/nominees as the case may be) or without making nomination. 41. Under 'Nomination' of said 1969 Rules, Section 136(1)(a) defines 'Family' for the purpose of DCRG and it reads as follows: 136. (1) (a) 'Family' for the purpose of this rule will include the following relatives of the officer- (i) Wife in the case of a male officer, (ii) Husband in the case of a female officer, (iii) Sons (iv) Unmarried and widowed daughters; (v) Brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried or widowed sisters; (vi) Father; (vii) Mother. Note 1:(iii) and (iv) will include stepchildren and adopted children. 42. Rule 136(1)(b) of said 1969 Rules defines 'Person' and it reads as 'Person' for the purpose of this rule shall include any company or association or body if individuals whether incorporated or not. 43. Sub Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 136 of 1969 Rules are as follows: 136(2) An officer shall, as soon as he is confirmed or completes five years' qualifying service, make a nomination conferring on one or more persons the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 135 and any gratuity which having become admissible to him under sub-rule (1) of that rule and rule 111 has not been paid to him before death: Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the officer has a family, the nominations shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family. Note 1:The Head of Office/Department will ensure that as soon as a Government servant is confirmed in a pensionable post, nominations in count of clause (2) above are duly made by such officer. 136(3) If an officer nominates more than one person under sub-rule (2) he shall specify in the nomination the amount or share payable to each of the nominees in such manner as took over the whole amount of the gratuity. 44. Rule 135(1) and (2) of 1969 Rules under DCRG read as follows: 135(1) An officer who has completed five years' qualifying service may be granted an additional gratuity not exceeding the amount specified in sub-rule (3), when he retires from service and is eligible for a gratuity or pension under the rules 101 and 111. 135(2) If an officer who has completed 5 years' qualifying service dies while in service, a gratuity not exceeding the amount specified in sub-rule (3) may be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under rule 136 or, if there is no such person, it may be paid in the manner indicated below- (i) If there are one or more surviving members of the family as in items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 136, it may be paid to all such members, other than any such member who is a widowed daughter, in equal shares. (ii) If the are no such surviving members of the family as at (i) above, but the other one or more survey being widowed daughters and/or one or more surviving members of the family as in items (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 136, the gratuity may be paid to all such members in equal shares. 45. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that "In Taylor Vs. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch.D. 426, 431 ] it is held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch.D. 426, 431 ] it is held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted." 46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Jayalalithaa Vs. State of Kamataka, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401 have held that "....this Court generally should not pass any order in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice if such order violates any statutory provisions." 47. In the said case of J. Jayalalithaa (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singhara Singh (Supra) and also observed that "There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible." 48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 453 had held that "The power conferred by Articles 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law." 49. In the case of Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 393 the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that "Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law." 50. It is settled that when the terms and conditions of the services of an employee are governed by the rules made under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India laying down the mode and manner in which the recruitment would be given effect to, even no order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India can be made by way of alterations or amendments of the said rules. 51. Similarly when the terms and conditions of the pension of an employee are governed by the rules made under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India laying down the mode and manner in which the pension of the said employee is to be disbursed as such no order can be passed in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India violating the said statutory provisions or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India altering or amending the said Pension Rules. 52. From the above it is seen that as per the provisions of Rules 143(i)(a) read with Rule 143(iii) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, a statutory Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Family Pension of said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, Assistant Professor of provincialised college, who died-in-harness on 20.12.2011, is entitled by his wife namely, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta only. 53. Anjali Sarma Dutta only. 53. Rules 135(2)(i) and (ii) of said statutory Pension Rules of 1969 clearly prescribe that if an officer who has completed 5 years' qualifying service dies while in service, does not nominate the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under rule 136 or, there is no such person, it shall be paid to the members of the 'Family' of the deceased as indicated in sub-rule (2) (i) of said Rule 135 i.e. 'Family' as in items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 136, in equal shares. 54. It is only in the absence of any such surviving members of the 'Family' of the deceased in items of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 136, but the other one or more surviving being widowed daughters and/or one or more surviving members of the family as in items (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 136, the gratuity shall be paid to all such members in equal shares. 55. Said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, Assistant Professor of Kharupetia College, prior to his untimely death on 20.12.2011 did not nominate any one of his 'Family' as defined in Rule 136(i)(a) of said 1969 Pension Rules that is required under Rule 136(2) of said 1969 Rules entitling to receive gratuity. 56. The Nomination as provided under Rule 136(i)(a) 'Family' of said 1969 Pension Rules, a statutory Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of DCRG, 'wife' is at serial No. (i), Sons are at serial No. (iii) under Rule 135(2)(i), where as 'mother' is at serial No. (vii) under Rule 135(2)(ii). 57. From the above it is seen that as per the provisions of Rules 135(2)(i)(a) read with Rule 136(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the statutory Pension Rules of 1969 all other pensionary and other financial benefits such as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Leave Encashment Benefit, Provident Fund amount, Group Insurance Scheme amount and Arrear Salary etc. standing in the credit said deceased Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta being cash grant and property, are entitled in equal shares by deceased's wife and son namely, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta and Sri Abhigyan Dutta, respectively. 58. standing in the credit said deceased Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta being cash grant and property, are entitled in equal shares by deceased's wife and son namely, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta and Sri Abhigyan Dutta, respectively. 58. For the reasons above and following the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, a statutory Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as noted above; the concerned official respondents are directed to release the Family Pension of said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, regular Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science in Kharupetia College of Darrang District, Assam who died-in-harness on 20.12.2011, to his wife namely, namely, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta only, [i.e., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 and the respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017] with effect from the date the same is due to her. 59. Similarly, the official respondents herein are directed to pay all other pensionary and other financial benefits like Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Leave Encashment Benefit, Provident Fund amount, Group Insurance Scheme amount and Arrear Salary etc. standing in the credit of the deceased Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, said Assistant Professor Kharupetia College of Darrang District, Assam in equal shares to his wife and son, namely, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta [petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4724/2017 and respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017] and Sri Abhigyan Dutta [petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2017 and respondent No. 8 in WP (C) No. 4724/2017] respectively. 60. Both, Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta and Sri Abhigyan Dutta shall submit necessary documents, photographs and filled-up forms, with their signatures, wherever required, etc. under the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, so that they can get the pensionary benefits as directed above. 61. The respondents, herein shall pay and release the pensionary benefits to the petitioners Smti. Anjali Sarma Dutta and Sri Abhigyan Dutta, as directed above, within a period of three months, on or before 31st December, 2018, subject to submission of required documents by them, in view of the fact that said Rupjyoti Prasad Dutta, Professor of Kharupetia College died-in-harness on 20.12.2011. 62. With the above observation and direction both the writ petitions are allowed, to the extent above.