WP(C) 771/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. H. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B. Ahm ed, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Deptt. representing the responde nts No. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance De ptt. appears for respondent No.2. The petitioner, who is the widow of Akhi Ramsiary, a Muster Roll Worker in the I rrigation Department and who died in harness on 14.4.05 having joined the Depart ment on 1.8.85, is before this Court with a grievance of non-payment of any fami ly pension to the family of the Muster Roll Worker. Although the petitioner’s hu sband served as a Muster Roll Worker for about 20 years from the year 1985 to 20 05, he died without regularisation of his services. Therefore the family pensio n was not paid to the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Muster Roll Wo rker. It appears that there is a policy decision of the Govt. to regularize the servic e of such workers for a day, preceding their death/retirement, to enable the fam ily of the Muster Roll Workers, to receive the benefit of pension or family pens ion, as the case may be. It is the common submissions of all the learned counsels for the parties that th is case be disposed of on the line of several such cases of Muster Roll Workers or their families, where directions have been given to verify the service partic ulars of the Muster Roll Workers and to posthumously regularize the service of s uch Muster Roll Workers, to enable the surviving family to receive the benefit o f family pension. Such decision of the Court rendered on 30.1.09 in W.P.(C) No. 5190/08 (Annexure- 4) and one on 29.4.08 in W.P.(C) No. 3325/08 (Annexure-3) have been enclosed to the petition and it is submitted that similar direction given by the Court in th ose two cases, should also be given in the present case. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels and also the records o f this case, I am of the opinion that the present case should be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance w ith its policy decision and as per the law laid down in the two decisions referr ed to herein above. It is submitted by Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Dep artment that necessary proposal to enable the petitioner to receive family pensi on after regularisation of her husband’s service on the day preceding his death, has already been sent to the Finance Department. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department on the basis o f instruction received submits that if requisite recommendation is received by t he Irrigation Deptt., the Finance Deptt. would favourably consider the matter, i n light of the policy decision taken by the Govt. and the law laid down by this Court. Accordingly, this case is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to take all requisite steps within three months from the date of receipt of this o rder, to ensure granting of family pension to the petitioner as per the directio n given by this Court, in the earlier cases referred to above. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner and also to Dr. B. Ahmed and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsels of the conc erned Deptts.