JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms R. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 5, being the authorities under the Agriculture Department of the Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 4, being the authorities under the Finance Department and Mr. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, being the Accountant General, Assam. 2. The husband of the petitioner Manik Ch. Baishya who was an Executive Engineer serving in the Head Office of the Agriculture Department of the Government of Assam, while returning home from office at about 6 p.m. on 07.06.2010 in his official vehicle, was abducted by some unknown miscreants. Later on, the dead body of the husband of the petitioner was found lying near the Assam Engineering College at Jalukbari. This writ petition is instituted for a direction to pay the special family pension to the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased employee with a further prayer that an interest @ 18% per annum be also paid for the delay in payment of the pension. 3. Rule 142 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules of 1969’) provides for a special family pension in the event a Government servant after rendering a minimum of seven years of continuous service dies while in service. Rule 142(i) of the Rules of 1969 provides that for a period of seven years following the date of death or till the date on which the officer would have reached the normal age or superannuation had he remained alive, whichever period is shorter, the pension payable would be at 50% of the basic pay last drawn, subject to a maximum of twice the pension applicable under Rule 141. 4. We have noticed that Rule 142 of the Rules of 1969 provides for an enhanced family pension over and above what is provided under Rule 140 and 141 either for a period of seven years or till the date of superannuation had the officer remained alive, whichever is shorter. 4. We have noticed that Rule 142 of the Rules of 1969 provides for an enhanced family pension over and above what is provided under Rule 140 and 141 either for a period of seven years or till the date of superannuation had the officer remained alive, whichever is shorter. Rule 142 of the Rules of 1969 would have to be understood to provide that after the period of seven years or the date of normal superannuation whichever is shorter is over, the family pension under the provisions of Rule 140 and 141 would thereafter be continued. Reference is also made to the Assam Services (Extra Ordinary) Pension Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules of 1963). In this respect, there is an office memorandum dated 13.03.1989 of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam being EMP/40/85/76 wherein special family pension for State Government employees who died during the discharge of duties or in connection with discharge of duties is provided for. The OM dated 13.03.1989 refers to another OM dated 26.08.1985 which provides for special family pension at the rate of full monthly salary including increments, dearness allowances, and all other allowances as was admissible to the deceased government employee who is killed while engaged in discharge of his duties or for reasons connected with discharge of his duties. The OM dated 13.03.1989 further clarifies that the special family pension would be applicable to the families of the Government servant who died while performing his duties or in connection of his duties amongst others, as a result of attack by extremists, antisocial elements etc. 5. In the instant case, as is already taken note of that the husband of the petitioner was taken away by certain miscreants while returning home from office and on the same date, later on, his dead body was found near the Assam Engineering College. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims for payment of special family pension inasmuch as, according to the petitioner the death of her husband was in connection with discharge of duties. A further relief sought for is that as the family pension has not been given, the petitioner be also paid an interest @ 18% per annum. 6. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims for payment of special family pension inasmuch as, according to the petitioner the death of her husband was in connection with discharge of duties. A further relief sought for is that as the family pension has not been given, the petitioner be also paid an interest @ 18% per annum. 6. We are not required to decide the issue as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to special family pension in view of the order dated 10.02.2022 of the Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Assam by which the petitioner Geetanjali Baishya had been sanctioned a revised family pension by providing for special family pension @ Rs. 44,989/- per month w.e.f. 10.06.2010 to 28.02.2018 and enhanced family pension of Rs. 14,760/- per month from 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2023 and, thereafter, normal family pension at Rs. 8,860/- per month from 01.03.2023 onwards. As the core grievance raised had been addressed by the order dated 10.02.2022 of the Senior Accounts Officer, we are not going into the question on the claim of the petitioner for special family pension and if the petitioner feels that the order dated 10.02.2022 does not provide for the adequate amount of special family pension as claimed, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the order so passed. 7. With regard to the further claim of the petitioner for payment of interest @18% for the delayed family pension, we have taken note of that from 17.06.2010 up to 28.11.2018, the petitioner had been paid the regular family pension under Rule 140/141 of the Rules of 1969. From such point of view, the delay in payment of family pension would be in respect of the difference between the special family pension provided to the petitioner by the order dated 10.02.2022 and the regular family pension that had already been paid. In this respect we take note of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court rendered in paragraph 24 of its judgment in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328 wherein the Supreme Court had laid down the proposition for payment of 12% interest on delayed payment of pension. In this respect we take note of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court rendered in paragraph 24 of its judgment in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328 wherein the Supreme Court had laid down the proposition for payment of 12% interest on delayed payment of pension. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate as to what would be the difference between the special family pension now sanctioned to the petitioner for the aforesaid period and the regular family pension that had already been paid and for the difference period an interest @ 12% be paid. 8. The petitioner also claims that under the OM dated 13.03.1989 she shall be entitled to an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The respondent No. 5 the Director of Agriculture to look into the records and examine as to whether the said amount had been paid to the petitioner and if the same is not paid, it be paid as per law within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. Writ Petition stands partly allowed.