Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition which was filed by the mother of the deceased son, died on 25. 1987, while he was in service leaving behind him the mother and her husband as his dependants. 2. The deceased was working as a conductor in the Madurai branch of the second respondent Corporation. The deceased was a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (Miscellaneous). His P.F. No. is 2877/1-1-85. During his service he nominated his mother as his nominee for the purpose of family pension and also for provident fund accumulation benefits and he had contributed to the Family Pension Fund and Provident Fund for more than the eligible period of two years from 1. 1985 to 29. 1987. When the first respondent made application for receiving the above said benefits of the schemes after the death of her son, she was denied monthly family pension on the ground that for the purpose of family pension the family as defined under the scheme does not include the dependent mother and father of the deceased, even if he has died as a bachelor. Therefore, she approached this Court by way of writ petition. 3. The case of the appellant is that the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 in its definition of the term family has brought under the ambit of the said term, only the wife in the case of a male member or the husband in the case of a female member and the minor sons and unmarried daughters and since the petitioner is the mother of the deceased son, who was not brought under the ambit of the term family under the scheme, she was rightly denied the family pension. 4. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, following the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court reported in Satya Ranjan Paul and another v. State of Tripura and others (2000 LAB. 4. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, following the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court reported in Satya Ranjan Paul and another v. State of Tripura and others (2000 LAB. I.C. 1579), wherein the parents of the deceased employee approached the State Government for according sanction of family pension on the ground that they were fully dependant on their son, who had left behind neither a widow nor any child, the State Government referred the matter to the Advocate General, Tripura, who opined that the parents were not entitled to family pension, the parents of the deceased employee approached the High Court and the learned single Judge held that there cannot be any bar in extending the benefit of the scheme to the parents of the deceased employee who died prior to 1. 1999 with effect from 1. 1999 on the ground that this is a piece of welfare legislation and aims to achieve the objective of giving the financial protection to the helpless parents of a deceased employee of the State Government whose income is below certain level. Therefore, the writ petitioners in the instant case will be entitled to family pension as per the aforesaid scheme with effect from 1. 1999. 5. Aggrieved of the said order, the present writ appeal is preferred by the Management reiterating the contentions raised before the learned single Judge that the scheme is not applicable to the parents of the deceased. The petitioner has no right to claim family pension and the appellant has rightly rejected the claim of the first respondent viz., mother of the deceased. Further submitted that though the parents were not included in the definition of family under the Employees Family Pension Scheme of the year 1971, subsequently in 1995 under Clause 16(5) (aa) the parents were also included in the definition of family. The said scheme was brought into force from 111. 1995. Therefore, as on the date of death of the petitioners son, i.e. 25. 1987 the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. 6. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that the scheme is not extended to the parents and therefore, the claim of the first respondent viz., mother of the deceased employee was rightly rejected. 1987 the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. 6. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that the scheme is not extended to the parents and therefore, the claim of the first respondent viz., mother of the deceased employee was rightly rejected. At this juncture, he relies on para 61 of the scheme deals with Nomination which reads as follows:- .(1) in chapter VIII of the Scheme contemplates that each member shall make in his declaration in form 2, a nomination conferring the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund in the event of his death before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable before payment has been made. .(2) A member may in his nomination distribute the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund amongst his nominees at his own discretion. (3) If a member has a family at the time of making a nomination, the nomination shall be in favour one or more persons belonging to his family. Any nomination made by such member in favour of a person not belonging to his family shall be invalid: Provided that a fresh nomination shall be made by the member on the marriage and any nomination made before such marriage shall be deemed to be invalid. .(4) If at the time of making a nomination the member has no family, the nomination may be in favour of any person or persons but if the member subsequently acquires a family, such nomination shall forthwith be deemed to be invalid and the member shall make a fresh nomination in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family. 7. By relying on this para the learned Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that since in the strict sense of the term family defined under Section 2(vii) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the mother has not been included, the first respondent herein viz.,mother of the deceased employee is not entitled to receive the pension. 8. 7. By relying on this para the learned Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that since in the strict sense of the term family defined under Section 2(vii) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the mother has not been included, the first respondent herein viz.,mother of the deceased employee is not entitled to receive the pension. 8. True, Section 2(vii) defines family means-- .(i) wife, in the case of male member of the Employees Pension Fund; .(ii) husband, in the case of a female member of the Employees Pension Fund; and (iii) sons and daughters of a member of the Employees Pension Fund; Explanation:-The expression "sons" and "daughters" shall include children legally adopted by the member. And thus parents are not brought into the fold of family. However, admittedly, the employee died a bachelor. Under para 61(4) extracted supra, if at the time of making a nomination the member has no family the nomination may be in favour of any person or persons but if the member subsequently acquires a family, such nomination shall forthwith be deemed to be invalid. Here, since admittedly, the employee while making the nomination was having no family within the meaning of Section 2(vii) of the Act, he offered his nomination in favour of his mother, which is valid till he gets married in terms of para 61(4). Since there was no occasion for the employee to change his nomination, as he died a bachelor, the nomination of the employee, nominating his mother i.e. the first respondent herein is very well valid and thus she becomes entitled for pension under this Act. 9. The nomination of the employee is acceptable as per Chapter VIII para 61 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The contention of the appellant is that as the parents are not included in the definition of the family under Section 2 of the Scheme. But in the case on hand, the first respondent was nominated to receive the fiscal assistance of the deceased employee, which is valid under para 61, she is entitled to receive the benefits under the Scheme, on the death of the employee. There is no invalidation of the mother being the nominee of the deceased, who died a bachelor. A combine reading of sub-paras (3) and (4) of Para 61 would go to show that the nomination of the mother valid. There is no invalidation of the mother being the nominee of the deceased, who died a bachelor. A combine reading of sub-paras (3) and (4) of Para 61 would go to show that the nomination of the mother valid. Further, it is not the case of the appellant Department that the nomination is invalid. It is an admitted case that the deceased has no family at the time of his death. Therefore, under sub-para (4) of para 61 the nomination of the mother is valid and therefore, she is entitled to receive family pension whether she fell within the definition of family or not. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased is a member of the scheme and eligible for sanction of family pension. Even though parents are not included in the definition family of the scheme 1971, as the appellant accepted nomination of the mother of the deceased to receive the fiscal assistance after his death, she is entitled to receive the family pension as the nominee. After realising the mistake for non inclusion of the parents in the definition of family in 1971 scheme, they have included the parents in the definition of family in 1995 scheme. As held by the learned single Judge of Gauhati High Court, this is a piece of welfare legislation and aims to achieve the object of giving the financial protection to the helpless parents of the deceased employee. 11. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition directing the appellant to pay the family pension to the first respondent and her husband as per the existing pension scheme with arrears from 27. 1987 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. We see no reasons to interfere with the said order. The order of the learned single Judge is confirmed. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P. is closed.