JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General for the respondent No.5 and Ms. P. Chakrabarty, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department for the respondents Nos.1 and 2. 2. The claim of the writ petitioner is that her father namely Lt. Soneswar Kalita who was working as a Khalasi in the Department of Flood Control under the Executive Engineer, Lower Assam INV Division, Barpeta Road superannuated from service on 31.12.2000. Thereafter, her late father had received pension regularly. On 05.03.1998 the petitioner got married but unfortunately her marriage culminated into a divorce and thereafter, she lived in her parental house along with her parents. It is the claim of the writ petitioner that she did not receive any maintenance or alimony from the divorced husband. Her late father was the sole source of income for the petitioner as well as her mother. The mother of the petitioner pre-deceased of her father on 21.06.2005. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner also expired on 23.10.2020 leaving behind the petitioner as the sole legal heir. The petitioner claims to be surviving somehow by rendering service in a local Anganwadi Centre and she receives an honorarium of Rs. 6,000/- only. The petitioner thereafter, approached the authorities concerned by filing necessary applications requesting for consideration of her case for grant of family pension. However, it did not receive due consideration from the Department and the matter was kept pending and as a consequence, thereof, the petitioner approached before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sole legal heir and the same is not disputed by the respondents. They have also not disputed the fact that the petitioner is presently surviving by earning an honorarium of Rs.6,000/- as an Anganwadi Worker. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pressed into service a judgment by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in “Hasiba Begum Vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors {WP(C) No. 8395/2019} vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pressed into service a judgment by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in “Hasiba Begum Vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors {WP(C) No. 8395/2019} vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2021. By pressing this judgment into service, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has already held that the divorced daughter, who was dependent upon the government servant is entitled to family pension subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the authorities upon being satisfied the dependency factor. He further submits that the petitioner being similarly situated is entitled to an order directing the authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension and the prayer be granted accordingly. 5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department has filed an affidavit contesting the claims of the writ petitioner. According to the respondent in terms of the notification dated 09.08.2018, issued by the Government of Assam, Department of Pension and Public Grievances a certificate of non-marriage and non-employment in the prescribed format, duly certified by the CEO/BDO concerned shall be furnished by the unmarried dependent daughter to the Treasury or the Bank once in a year. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this application along with the requirement of a certificate of non-marriage and non-employment has not been furnished. That apart, the department submits that there is no official record of any application by the deceased Government employee requesting for inclusion of the petitioner's name in the pension papers. It is the stand of the respondent that Rule 143 under the Assam Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2018, extends family pension to unmarried dependent daughters but not expressly to divorced daughters therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of the writ petitioner. 7. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the norms prescribed under the Assam Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2018 the certificate of non-marriage and non-employment are mandatory. 8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. From the pleadings available on record, it is seen that the petitioner's father, Lt. Soneswar Kalita expired on 23.10.2020. The next of kin certificate enclosed on the writ petition, which was issued by the Office of the SDO (Civil) Rangia Subdivision Office, Kamrup District reflects that Lt. From the pleadings available on record, it is seen that the petitioner's father, Lt. Soneswar Kalita expired on 23.10.2020. The next of kin certificate enclosed on the writ petition, which was issued by the Office of the SDO (Civil) Rangia Subdivision Office, Kamrup District reflects that Lt. Soneswar Kalita left behind a son and a daughter. The son is already 48 years old therefore, he is outside the purview of the parameters prescribed under the Pension Rule. The Assam Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2018 extends family pension to dependent daughters subject to certificates of being not married and non employment. Insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, it is admitted that she was married but which ended in a divorce and thereafter, she had been living in her parental house, to which her father being the sole source of income. After examining several judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court concluded that the benefit of pension being excluded from the divorced daughters is unjustified and the Court recognizes the right of a divorcee dependent daughter to receive the benefit of pension by treating her at par to the unmarried daughter. 9. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to ageing process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey- day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus, the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age.” 10. Thus, the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age.” 10. In Poonamal v. Union of India reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345 the Apex Court while examining the O.M. issued by the Government of India when at the relevant point in time there were two parallel schemes in operation for family pension namely Pre-Liberation Scheme which continued to be in forced for those employees who retired prior to January 1, 1964 or those who did not contribute out of death-cum-retirement gratuity, which was roughly styled as non- contributory scheme and the other was contributory scheme. Both these schemes were incooperated in Rules 54 and 55 respectively. The Government of India by appropriate Office Memorandum had done away with the requirement of the pre-condition of contribution of two months emoluments out of the death-cum-retirement gratuity the Apex Court held that family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950. When a Government servant dies in harness or soon after retirement, in the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation. Traditionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain gainful employment. She suffered the most inasmuch as she was deprived of the companionship of the husband and also became economically orphaned. As a measure of socio-economic justice family pension scheme was devised to help the widows tide over the crisis and till the minor children attain majority to extend them some succour. This appeared to be the underlying motivation in devising the family pension scheme the Apex Court held that as already held by this Court in numerous judgments pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. (Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [ (1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634 ], State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [ (1976) 2 SCC 1 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 172 : (1976) 3 SCR 360 ] and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 : 1983 UPSC 263].) Where the Government servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of right. 11. In fact the Apex Court look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. That is how pension has been looked upon in D.S. Nakara judgment [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 : 1983 UPSC 263] . 12. These judgments were elaborately examined again in Bhagwanti v. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 397 and it was held that pension is payable, as pointed out in several judgments of this Court, on the consideration of past service rendered by the government servant. Payability of the family pension is basically on the selfsame consideration. Since pension is linked with past service and the avowed purpose of the Pension Rules is to provide sustenance in old age. 13. From the above judgments discussed, it is clear that the purpose of family pension scheme is to provide succour to the widows and the other dependents of the deceased Government employees so that they are not forced into destitution and starvation. When the sole bread winner expires, the dependents become economically orphaned therefore, this is the underlying principle of the Government in formulating the family pension schemes. 14. When the sole bread winner expires, the dependents become economically orphaned therefore, this is the underlying principle of the Government in formulating the family pension schemes. 14. In the context of the present proceedings, as it is already settled by this Court that divorced daughters are also required to be treated with the same benefits as an unmarried daughter the petitioner also being a diavorced daughter, she is in principle entitled to family pension. However, in the context of the Rules and procedure prescribed after the widow, if any claims is to devolve upon other dependents then they are to submit a Non-Employment Certificate. The petitioner is therefore, required to submit a Non-Employment Certificate which is available as Annexure 3 to the Amendment of the Pension Rules of 1969. It is seen that the undertaking required to be given by the beneficiaries is the non-employment of the beneficiary in any capacity either in Government Department / Office / Corporation / undertaking / Autonomous Body / Statutory Body of Centre and State Government or Indian Territory during the past one year. 15. Under the scheme of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969, there is no restraint for a widow to receive family pension due for the services rendered by her late husband who was a government servant, without taking into consideration the employment status of the widow. Even if the widow is a government servant herself or employed elsewhere, there is no restriction under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 towards her entitlement to receive the family pension. Under the Rules, in the event where the widow (or the widower in a given case) predeceased the government servant or expires after receipt of family pension for some years, then the dependents if any who are entitled under the Rules, namely in the case of a son, if he is below the age of 21 years or a daughter till the age she was married, would also be entitled to receive their share of family pension which the spouse of the government servant was earlier receiving prior to his/her death. Subsequent amendments brought to the Rules have expanded the scope of conferment of the benefit on the daughters to which they were earlier eligible only, if they remained unmarried and till they attained the age of 21 years. Subsequent amendments brought to the Rules have expanded the scope of conferment of the benefit on the daughters to which they were earlier eligible only, if they remained unmarried and till they attained the age of 21 years. By the subsequent amendments as have been brought in by Notification dated 17.08.2022, the age limits in respect of unmarried daughters have been removed. The effect of that amendment is that any unmarried daughter would henceforth be entitled to family pension which she would be entitled to after the demise of the spouse of the deceased government servant. Therefore, in so far as unmarried daughters are concerned, there is no age bar which is now prescribed pursuant to the latest amendment. The Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in WP(C) No.8395/2019 vide order dated 11.11.2021 has expanded the scope of conferment of pension on unmarried daughters so as to include divorced daughters also. As has been discussed above, there is no appeal against the said judgment and order as on date and the same has therefore, attained finality. 16. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion, read with the judgment and order dated 11.11.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 8395/2019, is that divorced daughters are also entitled to family pension, and no age-related restraint applies to them, in the same manner as applicable to unmarried daughters. The family pension scheme does not put restraint on the spouse of the deceased government servant towards their entitlement to receive family pension, notwithstanding their employment status. It is only upon the demise of the spouse of the government servant who was in receipt of family pension that the other dependents, subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority regarding their dependency, namely a son up to the age of 18 years and an unmarried daughter or a divorced daughter without any age limit, would become entitled to the family pension which had earlier devolved upon the spouse of the government servant. Therefore, the insistence of employment status on an eligible dependent member subject to fulfilment of the other conditions, more particularly, in the case of daughters (both unmarried and divorced) on whom there is no restraint in terms of age bar to receive the family pension according to this Court is contrary to the very scheme itself intent and purpose of the family pension therefore, the non-employment status of the family member claiming family pension will have to be viewed only from the stand point of dependency of that family member or the deceased government servant. The authorities are required to come to a conclusion after due verifications that in case of a son, that the son was otherwise dependent on the deceased government servant and was a minor below the age of 18 years and/or in the case of a daughter who is unmarried and/or divorced that she was dependent on the government servant and therefore, they would be entitled to the family pension. If the son/daughter as a family members satisfy test of dependency, then further insistence on a certificate of non-employability according to this Court is totally uncalled for. There is no dispute as it seen from the facts of this case that after her divorce the petitioner did not remarried and the respondents have not raised such objections. The only objection raised by the respondents is the upon furnishing of the non-employment declaration as the petitioner is employed as an Anganwadi Worker and earning an honorarium of Rs.6,000/-. Since the question of a divorced daughter being required to be treated at par as an unmarried daughter has already been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and no further appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order and the said judgment attained the finality, therefore, it has to be held by referring to the said judgment that the right of the petitioner as a divorced unmarried daughter is to be treated at par with an unmarried daughter in making her claims for pension. 17. Taking into consideration the continuous hike in prices and the cost of living, it must be held that an honorarium of Rs.6,000/- cannot be considered to be sufficient for an individual to carry on a decent and respectable life. 17. Taking into consideration the continuous hike in prices and the cost of living, it must be held that an honorarium of Rs.6,000/- cannot be considered to be sufficient for an individual to carry on a decent and respectable life. The question of employment has to be understood in the context of offering employment so that the person concerned is able to earn an income, which would be considered sufficient to ensure that the person and his/her dependent members are able to sustain their lives without being reduced to penury. Also taking into consideration the cost of living index which is available in public forum, this Court is of the considered view that an income of Rs.6,000/- is by no means can be considered to be an income sufficient to sustain the petitioner. The mere receipt of some income should not be construed to be employability in the context of the principles enshrined of the constitution. The employability as prescribed under the Assam Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2018 has to examined by the authorities in conjunction with the dependability factor as the petitioner claims she was solely dependent on her late father. This Court is of the considered view that an income of Rs.6,000/- by no means can be considered to be an income which will ensure sustainability of the person concerned. Therefore, this honorarium of Rs.6,000/- received as an Anganwadi Worker by the petitioner cannot be termed to be an employment as conceived under the Assam Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2018 which is amended th by notification dated 9 of August, 2018, so as to come to a conclusions that the petitioner was no longer or not dependent on her late father as claimed. 18. Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the authorities to make all enquiries necessary to verify whether the petitioner satisfies the test of dependency on the deceased servant namely Late Soneswar Kalita whom the petitioner claims to be her late father and if the authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioner was indeed solely dependent on her father in view of the fact that she was divorced and was residing together with her late father, then, notwithstanding the petitioner being employed as an Anganwadi Worker earning certain sum of money, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her lawful claim for family pension. 19. 19. Let this exercise be carried out by the respondent authorities within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certificate copy of this order and thereafter appropriate orders be passed on the petitioner towards her claim for family pension. 20. With the above observations the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.