Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 20.2.2006 issued in proceedings O.Mu.1005/2006/A and to direct the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. Accordingto the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had married one Jeyakan in the year 1984, after the death of his first wife in the year 1979. The deceased was employed in the Office of the third respondent, he reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.2005 and he had received all the benefits also. Due to certain misunderstanding, though there is no divorce, the petitioner and the deceased were residing separately and by the order of the Judicial Magistrate passed in Crl.O.P.No.8 of 1994, the maintenance was ordered to be paid by the deceased to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioners husband died on 21.6.2006. Subsequent to his death, the petitioner applied for the family pension and the petitioner was informed that since the deceased had not nominated anybody to receive the family pension, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner as a wife of late Jeyakan, his employment in the third respondent Office and his death on 26.1.2006 and the fact that the marriage had also taken place only after the death of the first wife. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme which has been introduced to enable the family of the deceased Government servant to survive subsequent to his death, is denied to the Petition for no fault on her and only on technicalities. 4. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when there is no dispute regarding the status of the petitioner as a wife of the late Government servant, the petitioner is entitled for the family pension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequent to the death of the deceased, the petitioner and her children are suffering a lot to lead the life. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that basing on technicalities, the petitioners claim for family pension cannot be denied. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequent to the death of the deceased, the petitioner and her children are suffering a lot to lead the life. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that basing on technicalities, the petitioners claim for family pension cannot be denied. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Form-E which has been meant for sanctioning of the family pension, the deceased has specifically stated that there is no nominee at all consequently, the respondent is not able to sanction the family pension, though she is eligible for the same as a wife of the deceased-Jeyakan. As such the learned counsel for the respondents contended that unless the nomination was made, the petitioners request cannot be considered at all. 6. I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 7. It is an admitted position as referred above, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Government servant and that there is no dispute with regard to her status and as referred above, she was also getting maintenance as ordered by the learned Magistrate. It is not the case of the respondents-Department that there was a divorce between the petitioner and the deceased Government servant Jeyakan. Apart from this, only on the ground that no nomination has been made in Form-E, the family pension has been negatived to the petitioner. 8. But, under Rule 82 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, power of relaxation has been given wherein any department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes hardship in any particular case, the Department may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements that would require to such an extent and subject to exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. 9. 9. As far as this case is concerned, only on technicalities, family pension has been denied to the petitioner and apart from this, though a stand has been taken by the respondents and also the petitioner was informed that in Form-E, nomination has not been made and therefore, she is not eligible for any benefit, the object of the family pension scheme is to enable the family of the deceased Government servant to survive even after his death. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the third respondent and after his retirement, he was given all the terminal benefits and till his death, he has also received pension. As such when a welfare measure has been introduced with the purpose to enable the family of the deceased Government to survive, that cannot be defeated standing on mere technicalities. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, in my opinion, the object of the scheme will be defeated. That apart, when the power of relaxation has been given, using that power of relaxation, the condition of nomination can be relaxed and the petitioners request of family pension can be considered and the family pension can be sanctioned to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above reasoning, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to exercise the power under Rule 82 of the Pension Rules and to relax the condition relating to the nomination and to sanction and pay the family pension to the petitioner from the next day of the death of her husband namely Mr. Jayakan who was an employee of the third respondent and who died on 26.1.2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.