Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the wife of one Mr.Ramadoss, who was employed as a Teacher in Ayyappanaickenpet Panchayat Union Middle School, Jayakondam Taluk and died on 17.03.1991, while in service. The first wife of the deceased Ramadoss predeceased him. There are two minor children to the first wife at the time of the death of Mr.Ramadoss. Dispute arose between the minor children and the petitioner herein relating to the receipt of various benefits due to the death of Mr.Ramadoss. 2. The petitioner approached the District Munsif Court, Jayakondam by filing O.S.No 3..45 of 2000 seeking for a declaration that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Ramadoss and she is entitled to receive the entire terminal benefits. 3. While so, it is stated that Rule 49 (7)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules provides for payment of family pension to the minor children of the predeceased wife of the deceased Government employee. 4. Hence a proposal was sent by the Government on 31.12.1992 providing 50% of the family pension to the children of the first wife and 50% of the family pension to the second wife. Based on the proposal, the first respondent also passed orders sanctioning 50% of the family pension to the two children of the first wife and also remaining 50% to the second wife. 5. After the minor children crossed 25 years, they became ineligible to get family pension. Thereafter, the petitioner herein sought for full payment of family pension. 6. Since the same was not provided with, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to process the family pension papers and disburse the benefits due to the petitioner in accordance with law, on account of the death of her husband who was employed as Assistant Teacher, Ayyappanaickenpet Panchayat Union Middle School, Jayakondam Taluk. 7. Notice of motion was ordered on 26.02.2010. 8. Heard Mr.V.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.T.Selvarani, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the second and third respondents. 9. The first respondent has got written instructions from Senior Accounts Officer (Legal Cell) to the effect that the Government failed to send proposals with necessary documents in the prescribed format and the Service Book of the deceased for sanction of family pension to the second respondent. 9. The first respondent has got written instructions from Senior Accounts Officer (Legal Cell) to the effect that the Government failed to send proposals with necessary documents in the prescribed format and the Service Book of the deceased for sanction of family pension to the second respondent. It is stated that as and when the proposal is received from the second and third respondents, the claim of the petitioner will be considered and an appropriate order would be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the proposals. The written instructions, that is produced before this Court, are extracted here-under:- "Smt.Tamilselvi, the petitioner herein has prayed for a direction to release the death benefits payable in respect of late Sri Ramadoss (Teacher, Ayyappannaickenpet Panchayat Union Middle School, Jayankondam, died while in service on 17.03.1991) contending that she is entitled to the same. This respondent could authorize the admissible pensionary benefits only on receipt of necessary proposals from the departmental authority concerned along with requisite documents in the prescribed format and the Service Book of the deceased. It has been ascertained that no such proposal has been received by this respondent so far. However, this respondent undertakes to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the proposals." 10. While so, the learned Government Advocate has produced the entire files and submits that the Government has sent proposals as early as on 28.12.2002 to the first respondent, after the minor children crossed 25 years becoming ineligible to receive family pension and for payment of full pension to the petitioner herein. But, the first respondent returned the same on 03.04.2003 stating that there should be relaxation of Pension Rules for sanctioning full family pension. Thereafter, also the first respondent wrote a similar letter dated 31.12.2004 to the Educational Officer, Ariyalur, the second respondent herein, directing them to obtain relaxation of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules from the Government so as to sanction full family pension to the petitioner herein. There are lot of correspondences between respondents 2 to 3 with the first respondent in this regard. There are lot of correspondences between respondents 2 to 3 with the first respondent in this regard. The learned Government Advocate submits that the first respondent is not correct in his approach as the Rule 49 (7) (c) provides for payment of full family pension to a widow, if the minor children of the other widow ceases the eligibility to receive the family pension. 11. Rules 49 (7) (a) and 49 (7) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are extracted here-under:- "Rule 49 (7) (a):- "(i) Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. (ii) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child: 1[Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of family pension shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares or if there is only on such widow, in full to her] Rule 49 (7) (c):- Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of the death of the Government servants or pensioner had she not been so divorced: Provided that on the share of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to the payable such share or shares shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to other child or children otherwise eligible in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child." 12. From the above facts, it is clear that the first respondent is not correct in stating that the proposals were not sent by the Government and the other authorities such as respondents 2 and 3. In fact, the letter dated 03.04.2003 of the first respondent states that they returned the proposal on the ground that the Rule does not provide for full family pension and that there should be relaxation of the Rule. The letter dated 31.12.2004 to the second respondent also was in the same lines. In fact, the letter dated 03.04.2003 of the first respondent states that they returned the proposal on the ground that the Rule does not provide for full family pension and that there should be relaxation of the Rule. The letter dated 31.12.2004 to the second respondent also was in the same lines. The letter dated 31.12.2004 addressed to the second respondent by the first respondent is extracted here-under:- "With reference to your letter, I am to state that the orders for relaxation of pension rules in this particular case of Shri.V.Ramadoss (as Court orders is contradictory of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules) may be obtained from Government and furnished for further action. It has already been called for from Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Jayankondam, Perambalur in this office letter 2nd cited. But, no reply has been received so far. Necessary instructions may be issued to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer to furnish reply without further delay." 13. The learned counsel for the first respondent seeks to justify the stand of the Department on the ground that the teacher died in 17.03.1991, that therefore the Rule 49 (7) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is not applicable and that therefore the relaxation from the Government is necessary for payment of full family pension to the petitioner. 14. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent. Rule 49 (7) (c) was brought in 1995 with effect from 15.10.1991. The minor children received pension for quite a long time and they ceased to get pension only after they reached 25 years. They were paid pension up to 2002. In these circumstances, the issue that has to be decided is whether as on the date, when the minor son of the first wife ceased to receive family pension on reaching the age of 25 years, the petitioner is entitled to receive entire family pension under Rule 49 (7) (c). 15. In my considered view, the relevant date is not the date of death of the deceased Government employee and on the other hand the relevant date is the date on which the minor children ceased eligibility to receive the family pension. 16. 15. In my considered view, the relevant date is not the date of death of the deceased Government employee and on the other hand the relevant date is the date on which the minor children ceased eligibility to receive the family pension. 16. In these circumstances, the third respondent is directed to send proposals for the payment of full family pension of the petitioner to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from today and the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders granting full family pension in accordance with Rule 49 (7) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules within a period of six weeks thereafter along with arrears. 17. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.