Judgment :- Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pay the family pension to the petitioner as per the proviso to sub-rule 6(iii) under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 from 17.2.2001 to till date and throughout life in accordance with law within the time limit as this Court may impose. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: (i) Petitioner's mother by name Thillaivanam worked as Teacher in the De­partment of School Education and she retired from service on 31.7.1992, after total service of 37 years, 2 months and one day. Petitioner's mother was sanctioned the retirement benefits including pension and she died on 17.2.2001. During her lifetime, petitioner's mother de­clared the petitioner as her sole nominee to re­ceive family pension after her death, as the pe­titioner is a physically handicapped person and also unemployed. (ii) Petitioner is a physically disabled per-son, having 80% disability in relation to his lower limb, unable to earn his livelihood even after attaining the age of 25 years. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation citing the relevant Government Order and sub-rule 6(iii) of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, wherein it is stated that if a son or daugh­ter of the Government Servant is suffering from disability of mind or physically crippled and unable to earn livelihood after attaining the age of 25 years, family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life. (iii) It is the case of the petitioner that the Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, issued a certificate on 14.8.2005 and certified that the petitioner is a disabled person with 80% disability in his lower limb. On 20.3.2001, petitioner submitted a representa­tion for the sanction of family pension, for which he received a reply on 23.3.2001 from the 4th respondent, requesting to produce the original death certificate, legal heir ship certifi­cate, and pension passbook of the petitioner's mother. Petitioner sent the same and thereafter the 4th respondent recommended to the sec­ond respondent for the sanction of family pen­sion to the petitioner through his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 1545/B1/03 dated 29.8.2003. Pe­titioner also submitted grievance day petition before the District Collector, Madurai and the same was also forwarded to the second respon­dent in June, 2006. Petitioner sent the same and thereafter the 4th respondent recommended to the sec­ond respondent for the sanction of family pen­sion to the petitioner through his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 1545/B1/03 dated 29.8.2003. Pe­titioner also submitted grievance day petition before the District Collector, Madurai and the same was also forwarded to the second respon­dent in June, 2006. (iv) The Director of School Education in his proceedings dated 21.9.2004, requested the third respondent to submit the proposal be-fore him, who in turn requested the 4th respon­dent to forward the details. The 4th respondent forwarded all the details to the third respon­dent on 25.4.2004 and thereafter there is no progress in the matter even though petitioner submitted representations before the respondents 2 to 4 followed with counsel notice or 16.12.2005. The Tahsildar, Madurai South also issued a certificate to the petitioner or 26.10.2006 to the effect that the petitioner is having no source of livelihood and he is an unemployed person. Yet the family pension is not sanctioned and hence the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition. 3. The second respondent filed counter of affidavit wherein in para 4 it is stated as follows: "It is also submitted that Government had issued G.O. Ms. No. 327 Finance (Pension Department dated 30.8.2001, amending Rule 49 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, wherein it was directed that in the case of sons/daughters, family pension shall be sanctioned till he/she attains the age of 25 years or upto the date of his/her marriage, whichever is earlier. Since the above G.0 had not specified whether family pension is payable to married physically handicapper son/daughter, this respondent had ad dressed to the Government for clarification vide letter dated 2.12.2003 as to whether the physically handicapped son/daughter of the deceased Government Servant is not eligible for family pension from the date of marriage. Government had replied vide letter dated 13.9.2004 that the issue is being examined separately and that necessary clarification would be issued later. Reminder was also issued subsequently vide letter dated 28.9.2004 but clarification in this re­gard is still awaited. Conferring the family pension on married son/daughter is a policy decision to be taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, this respondent cannot grant family pension without the clarification/concurrence of the Govern­ment of Tamil Nadu". 4. Reminder was also issued subsequently vide letter dated 28.9.2004 but clarification in this re­gard is still awaited. Conferring the family pension on married son/daughter is a policy decision to be taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, this respondent cannot grant family pension without the clarification/concurrence of the Govern­ment of Tamil Nadu". 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Rule 49(6)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, mandates the respondents to sanction family pension to the physically crippled or disabled son or daughter of the deceased pensioner, for life and the same can be stopped only if the son or daughter starts earning his or her livelihood and so long as the petitioner continues to be a physically crippled person and not earning for his livelihood, the respondents are bound to sanction the family pension under the said Rule. The learned counsel also argued that the said Rule is not amended even according to the counter affidavit filed by the second respon­dent and only reason stated in the counter affi­davit is that the second respondent cannot grant family pension without clarification or concurrence of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the orders/clarification from the Government is awaited and thereafter only the petitioner's claim for the sanction of family pension from the date of the death of the peti­tioner's mother will be considered. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respective respondents. 7. The point in issue is whether the peti­tioner, who is a physically disabled son of the deceased pensioner, is entitled to get family pension from 18.2.2001, after the death of her mother as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978? 8. The facts in this case are not disputed. Petitioner's claim for family pension was rightly recommended by the 4th respondent as early as on 29.8.2003, along with all the re­quired enclosures. The 4th respondent through his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 1545/Al/03 dated 29.8.2003, submitted the proposals with rec­ommendation to the second respondent to sanction family pension to the petitioner from 18.2.2001. The receipt of the said recommen­dation and proposal is not denied by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. The 4th respondent through his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 1545/Al/03 dated 29.8.2003, submitted the proposals with rec­ommendation to the second respondent to sanction family pension to the petitioner from 18.2.2001. The receipt of the said recommen­dation and proposal is not denied by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit by the second respondent is that the second respon­dent is awaiting clarification/concurrence of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 9. Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, is governing the sanction of pen­sion and family pension. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 49 is relevant to the case on hand, which reads as follows: "Rule 49(6). 9. Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, is governing the sanction of pen­sion and family pension. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 49 is relevant to the case on hand, which reads as follows: "Rule 49(6). The period for which the fam­ily pension is payable shall be as follows: (i) in the case of a widow or widower upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier; (ii) in the case of a son until he attains the age of twenty-five years; (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married whichever is ear­lier: Provided that if the son or daughter of a Government Servant including the son or daughter, born after retirement from the marriage solemnized before or after retire­ment of a Government Servant, is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind in­cluding mentally retarded or is physically crippled or disabled, whether such handicap manifests before or after retirement or death while in service of a Government Servant so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years in the case of the son and 25 years in the case of the daughter, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life, subject to the following conditions, namely.- (i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government Ser­vant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in Clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) until the last minor child attains the age of 25 and thereafter the family pension shall be re­sumed in favour of the son or daughter suf­fering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/her for life." Further Rule 49(6)(vi) states, "such daughter shall not be eligible for fam­ily pension from the date on which she gets married." Nowhere in the Rule it is stated that a physi­cally disabled son will not be eligible to get family pension on his marriage. 10. 10. Admittedly, the above said Rule man-dates the respondents to sanction family pen­sion to the disabled or physically crippled son or daughter for life, subject to the condition that the family pension payable to such son or daughter shall be stopped if he or she starts earning for livelihood. 11. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not a physically crippled son of the deceased pensioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is earning for his livelihood. In the absence of such con­tention in the counter affidavit, the second re­spondent cannot deny the payment of family pension to the petitioner from 18.2.2001 as recommended by the 4th respondent through his proceedings dated 29.8.2003. The second respondent is bound by law to sanction the family pension as per Rule 49(6) extracted above and the second respondent is not justified in postponing payment on the plea that clarification/concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Government is awaited. The said pension Rule nowhere contemplates getting concurrence of the Government. Even if the Government is-sues clarification, the same will not have any retrospective effect. So far, no clarification is also issued. Hence, the second respondent is not justified in not sanctioning family pension as recommended by the 4th respondent as early as on 29.8.2003 to the petitioner. 12. A similar issue arose before the Hon­ourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Bhagwanti Mamtani v. Union of In­dia and Others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 145, wherein a mentally disabled daughter applied for family pension after six years of her fa­ther's death. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the delay in making the claim is not fatal. However, the family pension was di­rected to be paid from the month and year in which the person approached the Administra­tive Tribunal. In the said decision, the delay as­pect was considered by the Honourable Su­preme Court in para 4 and a direction was issued to sanction family pension from the date of filing of the original application before the Tribunal and if it was not paid within six months', 12% interest was also ordered to be paid. Relevant paras 4 and 5 are extracted hereunder: "4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Relevant paras 4 and 5 are extracted hereunder: "4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. N.N. Goswami, learned coun­sel appearing for the Union of India has contended that the appellant's father died in 1976 whereas the appellant approached the Government of India for the grant of pen­sion in the year 1982. According to him, the claim of the appellant being belated, she is not entitled to any relief by this Court. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The benefit of the provisions of the rule to the ap­pellant who is mentally disabled cannot be denied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, on the ground of delay in ap­proaching the Government of India. Mr. Goswami further stated that the rule cannot be made operative retrospectively. Accord­ing to him the rule came into force with ef­fect from 30.9.1974, whereas the appel­lant's father had retired from service in the year 1969. We see no force in the conten­tion. The appellant's father was drawing pension till he died in the year 1976. The ap­pellant only became entitled to the disability pension under the above-quoted rule after the death of her father. We therefore hold that the appellant is entitled to the family pension in terms of proviso to Rule 54(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 5. We are, however, of the view that the in­terest of justice would be met if we direct the Government of India to grant family pen­sion to the appellant from May 1986 when she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. Under the circum­stances, we direct the Government of India to grant family pension to the appellant with effect from 1.5.1986. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the appellant within six months from today. In case the arrears are not paid within the above said period, the ap­pellant shall be entitled to earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of the period of six months. The payment of arrears and the future pension shall be made by way of payee's account cheque in the name of the appellant. The arrears shall be spread over the period from May 1986 onwards for the purposes of income tax." 13. The payment of arrears and the future pension shall be made by way of payee's account cheque in the name of the appellant. The arrears shall be spread over the period from May 1986 onwards for the purposes of income tax." 13. In view of the above referred judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and based on my above finding, a writ of mandamus is issued, directing the second respondent to sanc­tion family pension to the petitioner from 18.2.2001 as recommended by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Na. Ka. No.1545/B1/03, dated 29.8.2003 within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to sanction family pension as ordered above and pay the arrears of family pension to the petitioner on or before 31.1.2007. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Writ Petition allowed.