JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 26.10.2009 and the consequent letter dated 15.12.2009 for grant of Family Pension to her and for regularization of sanctioned leave availed by her husband by the 3rd respondent for the absence period of 20.06.1974 to 07.10.1989 for grant of Family Pension to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s husband was working as teacher in the Panchayat Union School in Chengai MGR District and he died during the course of his service on 08.10.1999 leaving behind the petitioner and five children as his legal heirs. It is contended that the third respondent herein has treated the period of absence of the petitioner’s husband from 20.06.1974 to 07.10.1989 as an Extra-ordinary leave and made entries in the Service Register Book of the petitioner’s husband. Learned counsel would also submit that a proposal for Family Pension was sent to the Accountant General and the same was returned on the ground of obtaining sanction for the extraordinary leave taken by him for a period of above 15 years as per the proceedings dated 18.06.2006 and till date, the petitioner was not able to get any Family Pension. It is contended that in similar cases, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.371, Education Department dated 20.04.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.674, Education dated 14.06.1989 and as such, the petitioner has sought for similar relief by making representation dated 26.10.2009 and the same is pending for consideration by the respondents till date and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this court with the present writ petition seeing the above said prayer. 3. Heard Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the medical leave taken by the petitioner’s husband for more than 15 years, the proposal sent earlier was returned for obtaining sanction. She would submit that the petitioner’s representation would be considered in the light of the Government orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.371 dated 20.04.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 14.06.1989. 4. This court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record. 5. She would submit that the petitioner’s representation would be considered in the light of the Government orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.371 dated 20.04.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 14.06.1989. 4. This court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The fact remains that the petitioner’s husband was a teacher and he died during the course of his employment as a teacher on 08.10.1999. It is pertinent to note that he was on medical leave for 15 years due to heart ailment, i.e., from 20.06.1974 to 07.10.1989 and the same was treated as extraordinary leave and as a special case and entries were made in the Service Register. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in similar cases, the Government has considered and granted Family Pensions as per G.O.Ms.No.371 Education Department dated 20.04.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.674 Education dated 14.06.1989. It is also seen that the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 26.10.2009. But unfortunately, till date the said representation is not yet considered by the respondents. 6. In view of the same, this court, without going into the merits of the representation dated 26.10.2009, is constrained to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 26.10.2009 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.371 Education Department dated 20.04.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.674 Education dated 14.06.1989 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner also shall furnish fresh copy of the representation dated 26.10.2009 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the copy of such representation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same in the light of the above Government orders and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.