WP(C) 6878/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R Gogoi, learned S tate Counsel, Assam. Also heard Mr. C Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, Assam. The uncontroverted pleaded facts available from the writ petition, in absence of any affidavit-in-opposition, are that the petitioner’s husband, who had joined as Assistant Sub-Inspector under the Home Department of the State, was placed un der suspension on 29.11.1985 and a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him. This proceeding, however, was dropped on 20.01.1988 and the petitioner was released from suspension with effect from the same date. Golaghat PS Case No. 50 1/85, under Section 279/304(A)/114 of the Indian Penal Code registered against h im also ended in his discharge on 06.04.1989. The husband of the petitioner died on 09.08.2005. It was, thereafter that the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur by his order dated 08.06.2006 re-fixed the pay of the petitione r’s husband following the revision of pay w.e.f. 01.03.1986 to 01.06.2006 conseq uent upon the enforcement of the relevant Revision of Pay Rules. Though, the pet itioner thereafter received the death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension , she is before this Court being aggrieved by the denial of the amount due to he r as a result of the re-fixation of her husband’s pay by the order dated 08.06.2 006. She, therefore, seeks three fold reliefs: - 1) Re-calculation of the amount of family pension as per the revised pay of her husband. 2) Full monthly salary of her husband for the periods from 29.11.1985 to 20.01.1 988. 3) Arrear amount of salary after re-fixation of pay as per the order dated 08.06 .2006. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the documents available on record, this Court is of the view th at the petitioner’s claim for salary for the period from 29.11.1985 to 20.01.198 8 is untenable. Though, the petitioner’s husband had been placed under suspensio n by the order dated 29.11.1985, by the order dated 20.01.1988, whereby the disc iplinary proceeding against him was dropped, his suspension for all intents and purposes was withdrawn only from that date. In absence of any specific order as contemplated under FR 54 B by the concerned authority, it has to be construed th at the petitioner had remained under suspension from 20.01.1988. As the petition er has admitted that during that period, her husband had received the subsistenc e allowance payable under the law, no further relief on this count, as prayed fo r, is grantable. However, in view of the re-fixation of the pay of her husband, as is evident fro m the order dated 08.06.2006, her claim for recalculation of the family pension and arrear salary on her husband on the basis thereof needs to be attended to. T his petition is, thus, partially allowed with a direction to the Inspector Gener al of Police, Ulubari, Assam, respondent No. 2 to cause necessary steps to be ta ken to examine this claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and to remit to her the dues payable to her on these counts. As the petitioner waits in expec tation, the exercise indicated hereinabove, should be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to say, the decision taken in the exercise would be communicated to the petitioner in writing forthwith after the completion thereof. The petition stan ds disposed in the above terms. No costs.