Judgment :- 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 6.1.2009 in W.P. No.17573 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Petitioners granting pension from 1.4.2007 to the original Respondent, was modified with a direction to the First Petitioner to grant family pension to her with effect from 1.4.1999 as per Section 12-B(2-B)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act to be followed by sub-section (2-BB) with effect from 01.04.2007 and to pass appropriate orders regarding arrears payable to the original Respondent from 1.4.1999 till 31.03.2007. 2. The Respondent is the son of one Dhanapakiyam, who died on 17.09.2008. Her husband was an Ex.M.L.A. during the period 1952-57 from Jayamkonda Chozhapuram Constituency in Ariyalur District. He died on 06.02.1964. Originally the Writ Petition was filed by the widow of the said Ex.M.L.A. challenging the order passed by the First Petitioner dated 09.05.2008 under which the original Respondent was given monthly pension from 01.04.2007 at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. She made a representation dated 12.12.2007 to the First Petitioner requesting to pay her family pension as per the Pension Scheme for Members of Legislative Assembly enclosing necessary certificates including the Legal Heirship Certificates and no Objection Certificate from her son, who is the present Respondent. The grievance of the present Respondent is that his mother was entitled to family pension from the date when the Pension Rules for Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly came into existence in 1977 and therefore, granting pension from 01.04.2007 was not proper. Hence, he filed the Writ Petition stating that fixing of cut-off date as 01.04.2007 has no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 3. The Petitioners filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the First Respondent has sanctioned family pension to the original Respondent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 01.04.2007 based on the scheme of pension for former M.L.As. and M.L.Cs. introduced from 9.12.1975 under Section 12-B of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act, 1951 and the Tamil Nadu Legislators’ Pension Rules, 1977. It was also stated that based on the announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on the floor of the House on 14.05.1999 that families of Ex. and M.L.Cs. introduced from 9.12.1975 under Section 12-B of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act, 1951 and the Tamil Nadu Legislators’ Pension Rules, 1977. It was also stated that based on the announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on the floor of the House on 14.05.1999 that families of Ex. Legislators would be sanctioned 50% of pension amount as family pension, the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act, 1951 was amended by Act 41 of 1999 which came into effect from 01.04.1999 and consequently, Tamil Nadu Legislators’ Pension Rules, 1977 was also amended by introducing Rule 9A. It was further stated that as per the said Rule, family pension was granted to former members, who expired on or after 01.04.1999 and on the representation for extending the family pension in respect of legislators, who died before 01.04.1999, based on the announcement made by the Hon’ble Finance Minister on the Floor of the House on 09.05.2007 stating that in respect of any person entitled to pension died on or after 01.04.1999, family of such member shall be entitled to receive family pension of Rs.3,000/- per month and accordingly, Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act, 1951 was amended by Amendment Act, 31 of 2007 and that was given effect from 01.04.2007. It was stated that family pension has not been given to family members of any person prior to 01.04.1999 and the same has been prospective in operation from 01.04.1999. According to the First Petitioner, the original Respondent, being the wife of the Legislator, who died prior to 01.04.1999, was eligible for family pension only with effect from 01.04.2007, in view of the policy of the Government. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the authorities relied on by both the Counsel, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the right of the original Respondent to receive the family pension has accrued from 01.04.1999 and certainly from that date, she would be entitled for pension at 50% of pension amount upto 31.03.2007 and thereafter from 01.04.2007 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, which has been admittedly paid in this case. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge modified the impugned order with a direction to the Petitioners to pass appropriate orders regarding arrears payable to the original Respondent from 01.04.1999 till 31.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners are before us. 5. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge modified the impugned order with a direction to the Petitioners to pass appropriate orders regarding arrears payable to the original Respondent from 01.04.1999 till 31.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners are before us. 5. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 6. It is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the learned Judge ought to have noted that the Tamil Nadu Legislators’ Pension Rules was framed in the year 1977 and the former Legislators were paid pension and by Act 41/1999, for the first time, family pension was introduced, which came into force with effect from 01.04.1999 and prior to this date, there was no rule for payment of family pension to the family members of any deceased former Legislators and this Act was prospective in nature, applicable only to the former Legislators who died on or after 01.04.1999. It is also contended that as the Respondent’s father died prior to 01.04.1999, his mother was not entitled for the grant of family pension prior to 01.04.1999. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have noted the fact that the Tamil Nadu Legislators’ Pension Rule was further amended with effect from 01.04.1999 and it came into force only from 01.04.2007, which is only prospective and not retrospective. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to note that Clause (2-BB) was introduced by Act 31/2007 where in it is stated that in case any person entitled to pension under sub-section (1) died before the 1st day of April, 1999, the family of such member shall be entitled to receive a family pension of Rupees Three Thousand per month and this amended Act came into force from 01.04.2007 and accordingly, the original Respondent, viz., the wife of the former Legislator was granted pension as per the order impugned in the writ Petition dated 09.05.2008. In view of the above, it was contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 7. The family pension in respect of the Legislators under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries (Amendment) Act, 1999 was introduced for the first time in 1997 and it came into force with effect from 01.04.1999. In view of the above, it was contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 7. The family pension in respect of the Legislators under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries (Amendment) Act, 1999 was introduced for the first time in 1997 and it came into force with effect from 01.04.1999. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Legislators’ Pension Rules, 1977 was amended by introducing Rule 9-A, which came into force with effect from 01.04.1999 and as per the said Rule, family pension was granted to the former members who expired on or after 01.04.1999. In the present case, the Respondent’s father died prior to 01.04.1999. Therefore, his mother was not entitled for grant of family pension. On the basis of the representation for extending the family pension in respect of legislators who died before 01.04.1999, the Government once again amended the said Act by introducing section 12-B(2-BB) (i) under which the family of the deceased ex-legislator would be getting family pension at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.04.1999 and that was given effect from 01.04.2007. By virtue of the amended provision inserting Section 12-B(2-BB)(i), the original Respondent was granted family pension at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from 01.04.2007. 8. The learned Single Judge has held that it is not as if the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 2007 has superseded Section 12-B-(2-B)(i) which came into force from 01.04.1999 and the Amendment Act 31/07 which came into force from 01.04.2007 modifying the quantum of pension to the family is only an addition to Section 12-B(2-B)(i) and it is not in derogation and in such view of the matter, the contention raised by the Petitioners that by applying sub-section (2-B) to Section 12-B, the original Respondent would not have been entitled for arrears has no meaning. In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge set aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition upholding family pension to the mother of the Respondent with effect from 01.04.1999. 9. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by the Respondent that by virtue of the amendment by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 41 of 1999, which came into effect from 01.04.1999, the original Respondent’s husband having died at the time when the amendment came into effect viz., 01.04.1999, she being the wife would be entitled to pension from the said date. We are unable to agree with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order passed by the First Petitioner. 10. The member of the Legislative Assembly died on 06.02.1964. Therefore, his wife was not entitled for the family pension as per the original scheme, which came into force on 01.04.1999. It was only by Act 31 of 2007, sub-section (2-BB) was introduced thereby enabling the family members of the Legislator, who died before 01.04.1999 to claim pension. The amendment was made applicable from 01.04.2007. Therefore, the eligibility itself was only after 01.04.2007. 11. The grant of pension wasin accordance with the Policy Decision taken by the Government. When the father of the Respondent contested the election, there was no pension scheme. It was only long after his death, such a scheme was introduced. While introducing such scheme, it was open to the Government to prescribe the eligibility criteria and to fix the cut off date. The Scheme has to be taken in its entirety. Therefore, the Respondent cannot to heard to say that he should be given the arrears disregarding the prescription of cut off date. 12. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving retrospective effect to the scheme. 13. In the result, the order dated 06.01.2009 in W.P. No.17573 of 208 is set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs.