JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. P, Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Mr. C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel Dima Hasao Autonomous Council, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel Finance Department and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel Accountant General (Assam), appears for the Respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release to her the family pension other pensionary benefits due to her on account of the services rendered by her deceased husband. 3. Brief facts, requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under : 4. The husband of the petitioner was initially engaged as a Muster Roll worker in the establishment of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Lumding Sub-Division w.e.f. 01.12.1991. 5. His services were thereafter regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2005. On account of certain differences arising between the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner had instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, praying for grant of maintenance. The learned Court vide orders passed in the matter had granted maintenance to the petitioner and the same was being paid by the husband of the petitioner. Unfortunately, on 15.12.2019, the husband of the petitioner died in harness. 6. The petitioner thereafter, approached the respondent authorities praying for releasing to her family pension and other pensionary benefits due to her on account of the services rendered by her deceased husband. 7. The prayers made by the petitioner before the respondent authorities for being authorized the family pension and other pensioner benefits not having been considered, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 8. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the legally married wife of Late Mani Kanta Roy, she is entitled to receive family pension in pursuance to the death of her husband in terms of the provisions of Rule 143, of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. However, the respondent authorities have not released the same to the petitioner. 9. Mr. However, the respondent authorities have not released the same to the petitioner. 9. Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the stand taken by the respondent authorities more particularly the Respondent No. 8, in an affidavit filed in the present proceeding, has contended that the pension and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, on account of the services rendered by her husband, were being not processed by the respondent authorities only on the ground that it was presumed that the petitioner had remarried one Mukesh Chetri, on 27.07.2002. The said contention is stated to have been so made basing on a letter purportedly written by the father of the petitioner to the learned District Judicial Magistrate, Sankar Nagar Hojai, wherein the said fact was so disclosed. Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the affidavit in reply filed in the matter by the petitioner has contended that the said position is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner had sworn an affidavit and therein, has stated that the husband of the petitioner had taken his thumb impression on a blank paper over a revenue stamp and the said letter was stated to have been so written, utilizing the said blank paper, wherein his signature was so obtained. 10. It was further contended by Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the father of the petitioner in the said affidavit has stated that the letter purportedly stated to have been issued by him and relied upon by the respondent authorities for denying to the petitioner herein, her due pension and pensionary benefits was not written by him and the contents thereof are false and concocted and that the petitioner, herein, had never remarried. 11. In the above premises, Mr. Mahanta, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in absence of any credible material being brought on record by the respondent authorities demonstrating that the petitioner herein had remarried after the death of her husband, the petitioner cannot be denied her due family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her deceased husband. 12. Per contra, Mr. 12. Per contra, Mr. C. Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the respondent authorities basing on the said letter so issued by the father of the petitioner wherein, it was highlighted that the petitioner herein had remarried one Mukesh Chettri, on 27.07.2011, and was living with him, the respondent authorities had not proceeded to prepare a proposal for authorization to the petitioner her family pension and other pensionary benefits in pursuance to the death of her husband. 13. Mr. Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondents, has further submitted that in the event the petitioner herein has remarried after the death of her husband, she would not be entitled to receive the family pension in view of the bar so existing in this connection under the provisions of Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 15. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein was the legally married wife of Late Moni Kanta Roy, who was an employee in the establishment of the respondent No.8. The husband of the petitioner had died in harness on 15.12.2019. The materials brought on record further reveals that the petitioner herein had instituted proceedings invoking the provisions of the Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for grant of maintenance, before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai. 16. In pursuance to the directions passed by the learned trial court awarding maintenance to the petitioner, it is contended in the present proceeding, that the amount so awarded, was being paid by the late husband of the petitioner to her till the death of his death. The petitioner in pursuance to the death of her husband in harness, had approached the respondent authorities for being authorized family pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions of Rule 143 of the said Rules of 1969. 17. The petitioner in pursuance to the death of her husband in harness, had approached the respondent authorities for being authorized family pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions of Rule 143 of the said Rules of 1969. 17. The affidavit as filed in the present matter by the respondent No. 8 reveals that the processing with regard to the submission of proposal in favour of the petitioner for authorizing to her the family pension and other pensionary benefits was not proceeded with on account of a letter, purportedly, written by the father of the petitioner wherein, it was highlighted that the petitioner, herein, had divorced her husband i.e. Late Moni kanta Roy, in the month of March, 1997 and further that she had thereafter, remarried one Mukesh Chetri on 27.07.2002. In response the petitioner has brought on record an affidavit sworn by the father of the petitioner wherein he has denied the said contentions made in the communication relied upon by the respondent for denying to the petitioner her due pension and pensionary benefits. 18. The father of the petitioner in the said affidavit, has contended that he had borrowed an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand) from the husband of the petitioner and for which the husband of the petitioner had taken his thumb impression in a blank paper in presence of 3 (three) witnesses and therein had incorporated contentions that the petitioner herein had divorced her husband and thereafter remarried. However, it was contended that the contentions made in the said communication are false and concocted. 19. On a query made by this Court to the respondent authorities more particularly, Mr. C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Dima Hasao Autonomous Council, as to whether any order of a Court of a competent jurisdiction granting divorce, dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and late Moni Kanta Roy, has been brought on record, it was contended that no such order has been placed by any person before the respondent authorities. 20. In view of the fact that no order passed by a Court of competent Jurisdiction granting divorce to the petitioner and her husband has been brought on record, the status of the petitioner herein of being the wife of Late Moni Kanta Roy, cannot be disputed. 20. In view of the fact that no order passed by a Court of competent Jurisdiction granting divorce to the petitioner and her husband has been brought on record, the status of the petitioner herein of being the wife of Late Moni Kanta Roy, cannot be disputed. Accordingly, the petitioner herein would be covered by the definition of “Wife” as occasioning in the provisions of Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and would be entitled to receive family pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by her husband. 21. Accordingly, the petitioner having been found to be entitled to be authorized family pension and other pensionary benefits, this Court directs the respondents in the Public Works Department, more particularly, the Executive Engineer PWD (R&B), Maibong Division, Maibong, Dima Hasao, to process the family pension proposal in respect of the petitioner and submit the same before the Accountant General (A&E) Assam, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent authorities in the matter for an early conclusion of the preparation of the proposal for authorizing to her family pension and other pensionary benefits. 22. On receipt of the family pension proposal in respect of the petitioner herein, the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, shall process the same and authorize the family pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a further period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of such proposal form the authorities in the Public Works Department. 23. In view of the fact, that the respondent authorities have contended that the petitioner herein had remarried on 27.07.2002, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities to examine the said aspect of the matter while processing the family pension proposal of the petitioner, keeping in view the provisions of Sub-rule 2(A) of Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 24. In the event the respondent authorities on enquiry come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has actually remarried in term of the contention made by them in the present proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to receive the family pension and other pensionary benefits only till the date of her such remarriage. 24. In the event the respondent authorities on enquiry come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has actually remarried in term of the contention made by them in the present proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to receive the family pension and other pensionary benefits only till the date of her such remarriage. Thereafter, the family pension would be required to be so authorized to the children of the petitioner herein, provided they continue to remain eligible for being authorized such family pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. 25. With the above observations and directions the present writ petition stand disposed of.