Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Baruah, Mr. R. Sarma.
For the Respondents: Mr. T.C. Chutia, Mr. S.K. Medhi.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court applies the legal principle of presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows for the presumption that a person is dead if they have not been heard from for seven years. The death certificate issued in 1977, based on official communication, confirms the death of the missing constable, Triloki Nath Singh (!) (!) .

2. The petitioner, as the widow of the missing constable, is entitled to family pension benefits since her husband had completed over four years of service and was presumed dead as per legal standards (!) (!) .

3. The order of discharge from service, which was based on departmental proceedings and the disciplinary order, is declared not enforceable and is considered legally invalid. The proceedings and the order of discharge cannot operate as a bar to the petitioner’s claim for family pension (!) (!) (!) .

4. The provisions of the relevant pension rules, including the Assam Service (Pension) Rules and the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, support the petitioner’s claim for family pension, especially since the death was legally presumed and certified (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The order rejecting the claim for family pension, based on the departmental order and the interpretation that the case does not fall under the applicable rules, is set aside. The court directs the authorities to release the family pension benefits to the petitioner from the date of the death certificate, i.e., 28.11.2007 (!) (!) .

6. The court emphasizes that the declaration of death issued by the authorities, along with the presumption under the Evidence Act, provides sufficient legal basis to grant the family pension, regardless of the departmental proceedings or the order of discharge (!) (!) .

7. The authorities are instructed to process the family pension claim promptly within a specified time frame, ensuring compliance with the court’s directions (!) .

8. The legal validity of the departmental proceedings and the discharge order against the husband is questioned, and such proceedings are deemed invalid in the context of the pension claim (!) (!) .

9. The court clarifies that the presumption of death under Section 108 does not specify the date or circumstances of death; it only establishes that the person is presumed dead at the time the question is raised (!) (!) .

10. Overall, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, allowing her claim for family pension benefits based on the legal presumption of death, the issuance of the death certificate, and the invalidity of the departmental discharge order (!) (!) .

These points collectively support the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to family pension benefits, and the orders denying her claim are to be set aside.