WP(C) 4124/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner seeks writ or mandamus and/or an appropriate direction to the res pondents to provide her with an appointment to a Grade - III/IV post as contempl ated under the Assam Public Services (Appointment of Family Member of Persons ki lled by Extremists/Terrorists) Rules 1992(hereinafter for short referred to as t he Rules), as well as the notification dated 22.06.2004 issued by the Commission er & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (B) Department as the widow of h er husband who had been killed by Extremists/Terrorists on 19.04.1998. I have heard Mr. R.M. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. The petitioner has pleaded that her husband Fwrdanna Daimari was killed by unide ntified extremists/terrorists on 19.04.1998, an incident recorded in the report of the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in connection with which Ta ngla P.S. Case No. 37/98 U/s. 447/302/326/34 of the IPC was registered. The peti tioner has also annexed a copy of the post-mortem report to the above effect lai d in the aforementioned police case. On an application being submitted by her be fore the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi under the aforementioned Rules, a certificate dated 03.06.2008 was issued recognizing her preferential claim in the matter of recruitment to Government service as contemplated thereunder. Wh ile her claim for appointment under the Rules was pending, the same (Rules) was repealed and substituted by a notification dated 22.06.2004 prescribing modified norms pertaining to remedial measures to be accorded to the affected families o f such victims of extremists/terrorists’ violence. As the petitioner’s case re mains unattended, as on date, she is before this Court for redress. The Respondent No.2 in his counter, in substance, has pleaded that though, steps in terms of the repealed Rules had been taken on the petitioner’s application f or appointment thereunder with the introduction of the new norms as per notifica tion dated 22.06.2004, her application was returned to the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldoi with the instruction not to reopen the cases in which ex-grat ia payment of Rs. 1 Lakh in lieu of service has already been made. According to the answering respondent, the applicant has also not approached the concerned au thorities to avail the preferential benefits envisaged under the new norms. Mr. Chaudhury has urged that though the petitioner has been paid the ex-gratia a mount of Rs. 1 Lakh, meanwhile, the repealed of the Rules, per se does not disen title her to claim a preferential treatment in matter of recruitment to Governme nt service under the new stipulations contained in the notification dated 22.06. 2004. According to the petitioner, therefore the inaction on the part of the res pondents in processing her claim under the extant norms amounts to denial of the beneficial scheme contemplated by the respondent authorities for a member of a family of a victim falling to the extremists/terrorists’ violence. Mr. Ghosh, in reply has urged that though a stand has been taken to the effect t hat in cases where ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1 Lakh payable at a point of time wh en the earlier Rules had been made, the claim for preferential treatment in the matter of appointment to Government Service ought not to be entertained, the mat erials on record are inadequate to endorse the said view. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the plea taken on behalf o f the respondents to exclude from consideration the cases where ex-gratia paymen t of Rs. 1 Lakh had been paid for preferential treatment for appointment to Gove rnment service, is not borne out either by the Rules which stand repealed, as on date or by the modified prescriptions to that effect as contained in the notifi cation dated 22.06.2004. A bare reading of the Rules does not, in fact disclose any intention of the auth orities concerned to make the payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and appo intment thereunder mutually exclusive. As has been fairly pointed out by Mr. Gh osh, the above view stands endorsed in clear terms by the notification dated 22. 06.2004 which contemplates payment of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs, as well a s preferential treatment in the matter of such appointments. In the above view of the matter, the fact that the petitioner had been paid Rs. 1 Lakh as ex-gratia payment, in the estimate of this Court cannot stand in the w ay of consideration of her case for preferential treatment for appointment to Go vernment service under the new norms. As the process for consideration of the petitioner’s case for such appointment was pending at a point of time when the R ules were repealed and were substituted by the modified criteria as are embodied in notification dated 22.06.2004, in the opinion of this Court, having regard t o the wholesome objective thereof, her case ought not to be rejected mechanicall y on the ground of the Rules stands repealed. As the notification dated 22.06.20 04 in clear terms requires the pending cases to be remitted to the authority con cerned, it is considered in fitness of things and in alignment with the letter a nd spirit of the scheme envisaged by the respondents which undoubtedly is with a view to rehabilitate the affected families that the case of the petitioner ough t to be processed in terms of the prescriptions of the notification dated 22.06. 2004 according preferential treatment in the matter of appointment to government service. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed with a direction to the Depu ty Commissioner, Tangla, Udalguri to cause necessary steps to be taken to proces s the petitioner’s claim for preferential treatment for appointment to Governmen t service strictly in terms of the notification dated 22.06.2004 and to take an appropriate decision in that regard. As the petitioner has lost her husband in the year 1998 and awaits the consideration of her case as above, the process sho uld be complete within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the ce rtified copy of the above. No costs.