Judgment :- 1. The petitioners wife was a teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Lower Anaicut. She applied for leave from 15.06.1966 to 14.07.1966. In the mean time she died on 08.07.1966. The 2nd respondent sent proposals for family pension to the 3rd respondent and the same was returned during the year 1997 pointing out that the period between 15.06.1966 and 07.07.1966 has to be regularised for sanctioning family pension. However, the same was not done. Without complying with the said request, the family pension proposals were again submitted by the 2nd respondent. The same was returned by the 3rd respondent again in the year 1998. Thereafter, the family pension proposals were not submitted. 2. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4430 of 2000, praying for Family Pension and other retirement benefits and also to regularise the medical leave from 15.06.1966 to 07.07.1966. 3. On abolition of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.4430 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is transferred and re-numbered as writ petition in W.P.No.44856 of 2006. 4. The Senior Accounts Officer (Legal Cell) of the 3rd respondents office, has sent a written instruction to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the same is extracted hereunder. "The petitioners wife Smt.S.Krishanammal, who was serving as Teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Lower Anaicut expired on 8.7.66. Subsequent to her demise the Second Respondent forwarded family pension proposals in favour of the Petitioner in December 1997. During scrutiny of the proposals, it was seen by this Respondent that the deceased teacher had applied for leave from 15.6.66 to 14.7.66 and in the interim she had expired on 8.7.66. It was also noticed that her pay for the period from 15.6.66 to 30.6.66 had been withheld for want of order sanctioning leave. It was not clear as to whether leave had been sanctioned subsequently to her or not. Since, if leave had not been sanctioned, it would have the effect of being treated as an interruption in service which will entail forfeiture of entire past service, in which case the petitioner would become ineligible for family pension, this Respondent had returned the proposals twice in December 1997 and in 1998 for clarification of the above point. It appears that the Second Respondent had not retransmitted the proposals along with the required clarification. It appears that the Second Respondent had not retransmitted the proposals along with the required clarification. It is respectfully submitted that as per Rule 23 of Tamilnadu (Pension) Rules, 1978, resignation from service or post entails forfeiture of past service in the instant case, though the petitioners wife had applied for leave, the same does not appear to have been sanctioned. Therefore, the said period of absence would be deemed as unauthorised absence/resignation, which would entail forfeiture of the entire past service put in by her. However, if the period from 15.6.66 to 7.7.66 is regularised as leave, then in that case, the Petitioner shall become eligible for family pension as per G.O.Ms.No.465, Education Department, dated 13.03.1980. It is therefore submitted that this Honble Court may pass such orders as may be deemed fit." 5. The 2nd respondent is also present in the Court. The learned Government Advocate submits that the 2nd respondent undertakes to re-submit the Family Pension proposals, after regularising the services of the petitioners wife between 15.06.1966 and 07.07.1966, within two weeks. Her submission is placed on record. 6. Recording the aforesaid statement of the learned Government Advocate and also the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent is directed to re-submit the Family Pension Proposals to the 3rd respondent, after regularising the services of the petitioners wife between 15.06.1966 and 07.07.1966, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Further, on submission of the proposals by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders sanctioning Family Pension and other terminal benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks, thereafter. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.