AMRANA BEGUM MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of one Nazul Haque Mazumdar, who was at the relevant point of time, serving as CO, V.D.O. of the Baithalangso Police Station. According to the petitioner, on 18.5.1996, while on duty, the husband of the petitioner was kidnapped by ULFA Extremists. In regard to the aforesaid incident, the petitioner had lodged a F.I.R. in connection with which Baithalangso P.S. Case No. 36 of 1996 under Section 365 IPC read with Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was registered. According to the petitioner, the whereabouts of her husband since 18.5.1996 are not known. In these circumstances after the repeated attempts of the petitioner to obtain financial relief at the hands of the Government had failed, the present approach to this Court has been made under Article 226 of the Constitution; The prayers made in the writ petition are for payment of the salary of the husband of the petitioner till such time that her husband can be presumed to be alive and thereafter for family pension on the presumption that her husband is no more.

(2.) The pleadings in the writ petition, which must be noticed by the Court, are to the effect that except for 3 months pay, which was granted by the State by an order dated 25.6.1997, no other financial benefit has been forthcoming leaving the petitioner in dire straits. The petitioner has brought on record a letter dated 17.4.1998 of the Inspector General of Police (OSD) to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (A) Department requesting the State to presume the husband of the petitioner to be dead and for grant of family pension to the petitioner on that basis. The petitioner has stated that the aforesaid request has been turned down by the State Government by an order dated 21.9.1999 on the ground that the period prescribed under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act not being over, no presumption of death can be drawn. It is in the above circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs claimed.

(3.) No counter has been filed on behalf of the State respondents nor any instructions, as may have been received by Shri H.K. Mahanta, learned Government Advocate, Assam, who had represented the respondents, were placed before the Court at the hearing.