JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the State respondents and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 being the authorities under the BTC.

2. The husband of the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher (Science) in the Yogi Satyananda Girls High School in the Baksa district of Assam and his services were provincialised w.e.f. 01.08.1995. The husband of the petitioner did not return home from school on 20.05.2014 and since then his whereabouts are not known to anyone. On 23.05.2014, the petitioner lodged an ejahar before the Goreswar Police Station, which was registered as Goreswar Police Station Case No. 41/2014 under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the missing of the husband of the petitioner, one Habeas corpus petition being W.P.(Crl) No.03/2015 was also instituted. Apart from the habeas corpus petition, the petitioner also instituted another writ petition being WP(C) No.3399/2015, inter-alia claiming for family pension under Rule 143-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.06.2015. In the circumstance, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench which was numbered as WA 351/2015.

3. The WA 351/2015 was given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 27.11.2017. In the writ appellate proceeding, an up-to-date status report of the Baihata Chariali Police Station Case No. 154/2014 as on 03.11.2017 was placed before the Division Bench. The contents of the report was recorded in the judgment dated 27.11.2017 of the Division Bench. The purport of the status report was that the husband of the petitioner may have been involved in obtaining loan from private sources and that there may be a possibility of some of the persons from whom he had borrowed money to be involved in his disappearance. The Division Bench accordingly allowed the investigation to go on. But, however having so provided, the Division Bench also took note of the provision of Rule 143-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 and observed that as per the said Rule 143-A, the family of a missing Government employee at the first instance be paid the amount of salary due, leave encashment due and the amount of GPF etc after one year from the date of receipt of a report from the police.

4. Having taken note of that the husband of the petitioner went missing from 20.05.2014 and that the status report submitted was up to 03.11.2017, the Division Bench formed its opinion that the provision of Rule 143-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 will be attracted in the present case. Accordingly, the order of dismissal by the learned Single Judge dated 15.06.2015 was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed by directing the respondents therein to pay the admissible dues to the petitioner in terms of Rule 143-A of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 within a period of three months thereof. This writ petition is instituted on the grievance that in the meantime seven years had elapsed since the disappearance of the husband of the petitioner and it being so, the provision of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would also be applicable over and above what was provided by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 27.11.2017.

5. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam has produced certain communications from the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam as well as Director of Pension, Assam, the purport of which is that the Director was asked to look into the matter and provide urgent instruction. By another communication dated 06.01.2021 of the Director of Pension, Assam, it was provided that the order of the writ appeal was not received by the Director of Pension and therefore, he is of the view that he is not required to do anything furthe