WP(C) 114/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A..C.UPADHYAY JUDGMENT AND ORDER( ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. B.D.Konwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M r. P.S.Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. Late Jibeswar Saikia, Constable No. 689 in the 11th AP Bn. was dismisse d from service for unauthorised absence from his duties w.e.f. 19.08.1997 to 1 5.11.2000. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the wife of late Jibeswar Saikia for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the arrear su bsistence allowance and other financial benefits like ex-gratia, GPF,GIS, etc. to the legal heirs of her deceased husband and also for setting aside the order of the dismissal of the petitioner’s husband and for payment of the subsistence allowance and other consequential financial benefits on behalf of her husband. 4 The facts leading to filing of the writ petition in short are as follows :- The husband of the petitioner late Jibeswar Saikia was a constable in the 11th Assam Police Battalion ,Dergoan, District,Golaghat. He was dismissed from servi ce on 15.11.2000 for unauthorised absence from his duties w.e.f. 19.08.1997 to 1 5.11.2000. 5. The husband of the petitioner died an unnatural death on 16.08.2003 by c ommitting suicide. But prior to his death, the husband of the petitioner was pla ced under suspension on 30.3.2000, for unauthorised absence from his duties and after his suspension , a show cause notice was issued and on completion of th e departmental enquiry, he was found to be guilty of the charge of unauthorised absence and gross indiscipline and accordingly, he was dismissed from service. 6. The respondent-State Govt. has also contested the case by filing affi davit in opposition. 7. Mr. B.D.Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner by drawning the atte ntion of the Court to the statement made by the respondent in the affidavit subm itted that due to failure of the husband of the petitioner to furnish a certific ate that he was not engaged in any other employment/profession/business during t he period of suspension, the subsistence allowance could not be paid to the peti tioner’s husband during his life time. The learned counsel for the petitioner al so submitted that since all the certificates are ready and available, the petiti oner may be allowed to furnish such certificates so that the respondent authorit ies may consider the payment of legally admissible subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that though a pra yer was made for appointment of the petitioner in the Department on compassiona te ground but considering the lapse of time from the date of death of the husban d, now the petitioner do not desire to press her prayer to accommodate the pe titioner in the scheme of compassionate appointment. 9. The learned Govt. Advocate in their affidavit it has been indicated th at the scheme of compassionate appointment is not available for those employee s, who are dismissed from service since the scheme of compassionate appointment is available, to the family members of the deceased , only when a Government ser vant dies-in-harness. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a widow having four daughters and a son to support who are all dependant on her for subsistence and education. 11 Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the learned Cou nsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may now be disposed of by allowing the writ petitioner to file a representation before the respondent au thority to reconsider the punishment of removal from service imposed on her hu sband by reducing it to compulsory retirement from service and consequential r elief so that the family members of the deceased constable may avail minimum pen sionary benefits to eke out a living. 12. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the relief claimed by the petitioner as aforesaid, the learned State Counsel has submitted that he has no objection, if the petitioner proposes to submit a representation for red uction of the punishment imposed on her husband by the authority concerned. In the event of filing such representation the authority concerned shall examine t he representation in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this writ petition by allo wing the petitioner to submit representation before the authority concerned for reduction of punishment imposed on the petitioner’s husband with consequential relief . In the event of filing such application by the petitioner as aforesaid , the concerned authority shall consider and dispose of such representation wit hin a period of 4 ( four) months from the date of receipt of such representat ion in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of thi s order together with the said representation. 14. Further, the respondent authorities are also directed to consider payme nt of admissible subsistence allowance of the husband of the petitioner, which was legally due to him during the period of his suspension from service after due compliance of the official formalities, in terms of the relevant rules gove rning payment of subsistence allowance. 15. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition stands di sposed of.