Judgment :- 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken us for final disposal today. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of one Lakshmi who was working as a permanent Sanitary worker in the Karingal Town Panchayat. The said Lakshmi passed away on 2.10.1981. The petitioner had been appointed as the nominee to receive the Provident fund, pension benefit and also the family benefit relief. The petitioner is married. She applied with relevant documents for sanction of the payment of Rs. 10,000/- being the alleged family benefit relief. The second respondent sanctioned the payment of Rs. 10,000/- by his order dated 16.12.1982. The third respondent and by his letter, dated 13.5.1983 held that the petitioner is not eligible for the payment of the lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- because she is married and a married daughter is ineligible for receiving the said amount. In rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Family Benefits Fund Rule, the persons eligible to receive the family benefit fund are mentioned. A married daughter is also entitled under the said rule to receive the said amount. In G.O.Ms. No. 690, Finance (P) Department, dated 24.10.1981 the Government directed that married daughters shall not be eligible to enjoy the lumpsum benefit. By a further letter, dated 1.10.1982 the Government clarified that the subsequent G.O., dated 24.10.1981 shall not apply to cases of deaths prior to 24.10.1981. It was also made clear that since the petitioners another had died on 2.10.1981, she was eligible to receive the lump sum payment. This clarification was issued by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts on 17.8.1983. Armed with this clarification the petitioner again approached the second respondent. Unable to obtain relief from the respondents the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction and pay the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 1.10.1981 till the date of payment. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners mother was working as a Sanitary worker in their office from 1.10.1973 onwards. A Group Insurance Scheme was introduced for the employees with effect from 1.1.1978. 10,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 1.10.1981 till the date of payment. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners mother was working as a Sanitary worker in their office from 1.10.1973 onwards. A Group Insurance Scheme was introduced for the employees with effect from 1.1.1978. The said Lakshmi had also joined the Scheme and had nominated the petitioner to receive the lump sum benefit under the Scheme in the event of the death of the said Lakshmi. The fact of the death of Lakshmi occurring on 2.10.1981 is also not disputed. The second respondent had, in fact, sanctioned, payment of Rs. 10,000/- as early as on 16.12.1982. The reasons for not paying the amount as alleged in the writ petition are not disputed. The only correction in the allegation of the petitioner is that the lump sum amount relates to the Group Insurance scheme and not the family benefit fund scheme. It is also admitted that the amount was not paid because of the letter of the Director of Treasuries dated 13.5.1983. There is a faint pleading that the Government memorandum dated 15.3.1977 entitling married daughters to got the lump sum benefit under the Family Benefit Fund Scheme will not apply to the Group Insurance Scheme. 4. On the above pleadings, the only question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled for the payment of the lump sum benefit under the Group Insurance Scheme. There are two reasons why the petitioner should succeed in this case. Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Family Benefit Fund Rules categorically says that married daughters are also eligible to receive the lump sum payment. The said rule applies only in respect of the Family Benefit Fund. But there is no impediment for applying the same rule in respect of lump sum payment under the Group Insurance Scheme. Certainly there is no rule or regulation or even a Government Order, which prohibits the payment to married daughter, in respect of the lump sum accruing under the Group Insurance Scheme. The fact remains that the petitioner had been nominated in the Group Insurance Scheme as the persons entitled to receive the benefit. Therefore, in the absence of any specific rule, the petitioner is entitled to got the amount. 5. The fact remains that the petitioner had been nominated in the Group Insurance Scheme as the persons entitled to receive the benefit. Therefore, in the absence of any specific rule, the petitioner is entitled to got the amount. 5. The second reason in favour of the petitioner is that the clarification dated 17.8.1983 issued by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts categorically says that the very claim of the petitioner should be considered favourably because the date of death of her mother was on 2.10.1981. In the said (clarification) the subject is noted as follows: “G.I.S. payment of lump sum amount sanction ordered Clarification - Reg.” Therefore, it is clear that the clarification was with reference to the Group Insurance Scheme. In the said circumstances, the delay in payment of the amount is unexplained. At least after the clarification by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the respondents should have ensured that the money was paid to the petitioner. For the two reasons given above, I have no doubt that the petitioner should succeed in the writ petition. 6. The only further question is whether interest should be awarded to the petitioner. This is a case where the payment had been denied purely due to the incorrect application of the Rules to the petitioner. Though I am not inclined to award interest from the date of death, at least from the date of the sanction of the amount by the second respondent by proceedings No. 34/82/Q2 dated 16.12.1982, interest is payable. The subsequent proceedings cancelling the payment by letter dated 13.5.1983 issued by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts is clearly illegal. Further, the Director of Treasuries and Accounts himself has clarified the case of the petitioner as early as on 17.8.1983. There is no reason at all as to why the payment has been delayed till the petitioner was constrained to move this writ petition on 20.10.1992. I am therefore inclined to award interest from the date of sanction, viz., 16.12.1982. The interest shall be payable at the rate of 12% per annum, which is a very moderate and reasonable rate of interest. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 16.12.1982 till the date of payment. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand). Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 16.12.1982 till the date of payment. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 1,000/-(One Thousand). I direct the respondents to effect payment within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.