Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dated 6.6.2002 and to set aside the condition found in paragraph 7(a) as illegal and for a consequential direction to the State Government to pay family pension to the petitioner from 12.8.1991 without prejudice to the right of getting family pension under the EPF Pension Scheme 1995. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 19.02.2007. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim direction, this court had directed the respondents to pay Rs.1000/- per month as an adhoc pension pending disposal of the main writ petition. Till date, the respondents have complied with the condition. Such a direction was issued on the ground that the matter was covered by the division bench judgment of this court where family pension was sanctioned. Subsequently, on request made by the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat to resolve the dispute between the parties. Since in the Lok Adalat, the matter could not be resolved, the matter was referred back to this court for determination on merits. 3. G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dated 6.6.2002 grants family pension to the family of erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Pensioners. The said G.O came to be passed on a direction issued by this court in W.P.No.21204 of 1992, dated 7.3.2001. By the G.O., in paragraph 7(a), family pension is excluded in case of persons who come under the EPF Pension Scheme from 16.11.1995. Paragraph 7(a) reads as follows: "7.) This order is not applicable to the following members of the Petitioner's Association : (a) who were absorbed in the State Transport Undertakings and who had come under Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme from 16-11-1995 onwards and are entitled for getting Family Pension under the Employees Provident Fund Act and," 4. The writ petition which was referred to in the G.O., was filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport and Transport Corporation Retired Employees Association against the State Government. The said writ petition came to be allowed by an order dated 7.3.2001. The prayer in that writ petition was as follows : ".... The writ petition which was referred to in the G.O., was filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport and Transport Corporation Retired Employees Association against the State Government. The said writ petition came to be allowed by an order dated 7.3.2001. The prayer in that writ petition was as follows : ".... petitioners are seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant family pension under the existing pension rules to the families of the members of the petitioner Association-who were Government employees, who had been permanently absorbed in various Transport Corporations-in respect of the services rendered by them under the Government." 5. Accepting the contentions, this court held in paragraph 8 as follows : "8) ....I allow this writ petition and direct the first respondent Government to grant family pension under the existing Pension Rules to the families of the members of the petitioner Association, who were Government employees and who had been permanently absorbed in the various Transport Corporations in respect of the services rendered by them under the Government, as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order...." 6. It is pursuant to the direction issued by this court on the writ petition filed by the employees Association Association, G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dated 6.6.2002 came to be issued. Thereafter, one Lokanayaki filed a writ petition being W.P.No.35643 of 2007 challenging the stipulations of paragraph 7(a) of the G.O. That writ petition came to be dismissed. On appeal taken before the division bench in W.A.No.1246 of 2009, the writ appeal was allowed by the division bench vide order dated 18.08.2010. The division bench in paragraphs 22 and 23 of its order held as follows: "22.) Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents were not justified in denying family pension to the appellant solely on the ground that she was receiving pension under Employee's P.F. Scheme. 23.) The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions would submit that the appellant is prepared to exercise the option by restricting her claim to the family pension as announced by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.110, dated 6.6.2002 and the subsequent order in G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 13.8.2004."(Emphasis added) 7. This matter was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.4660 of 2011. That SLP was disposed of on 14.11.2011 by the Supreme Court. This matter was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.4660 of 2011. That SLP was disposed of on 14.11.2011 by the Supreme Court. In order to give effect to the said order, the State Government had issued G.O.(3D)No.38, Transport Department, dated 7.9.2011 and in paragraph 6 of the Government order, the Government had directed as follows: "6.) In the circumstances stated above, the Government have decided to implement the order of the Hon'ble High Court Madras, dated : 18.8.2010 in W.A.No.1246/2009 to sanction Family Pension to Tmt.A.Loganayaki, W/o.(Late) G.Anantha Krishnan, Ex-Fitter with effect from 13.8.2004, after deducting the Employee Provident Fund Pension already paid to Tmt.A.Loganayaki for the period from 13.8.2004, as well as the amount paid to her husband by way of Employer's contribution viz. Rs.50,788/- from the arrears payable to her. In case the arrears amount is not sufficient to recover the amount indicated above, the Government have also decided to recover the balance amount from the monthly pension to be paid to the petitioner in 36 equal installments as a special case, subject to the condition that the instant case should not be cited as precedent in future for any other case." 8. Even earlier the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.189, Transport Department, dated 13.8.2004 had asked for an option to be exercised by the spouses of eligible persons to be forwarded to the State Government. In paragraph 4 of that G.O., it was stated as follows: "4.) The Managing Director of the respective Transport Corporations are requested to finalise the Family Pension proposals obtained from the spouses of all eligible pensioners of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in the prescribed format under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and forward them to the under Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, for sanction of Family Pension and thereafter transmission to the Accountant General, Chennai for admittance and issue of authorisation for payment." 9. The counsel for the petitioner wanted parity as in the case of others and placed reliance upon an order passed by an another division bench in a case in M.Sundaravalli Vs. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai and another in W.P.No.35674 of 2005, dated 20.9.2011. The counsel for the petitioner wanted parity as in the case of others and placed reliance upon an order passed by an another division bench in a case in M.Sundaravalli Vs. The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai and another in W.P.No.35674 of 2005, dated 20.9.2011. In paragraph 13 of the order, it was observed as follows: "13.) The request made by the petitioner for family pension was rejected only on the ground of clause 7(a) of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 6 June, 2002. While rejecting the claim made by the petitioner, the authorities miserably failed to consider the fact that they were expected to call upon the employees/widows to exercise their option under Rule 13-B of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Therefore, failure on the part of the authorities to take steps to get the option exercised should not cause prejudice to the widow of an erstwhile pensioner. We are therefore of the view that the State was not justified in denying family pension to the petitioner." (Emphasis added) 10. It is in that context, the petitioner seeks for payment of family pension without prejudice to the right of receiving family pension under the EPF Scheme. But the decisions referred to therein did not talk about the entitlement to receive both pensions. On the other hand, the decision says that a person could exercise his option to come over to one scheme or the other. 11. However, in the counter affidavit it was stated that the petitioner's husband K.Balakrishnan was appointed on 1.2.1964 as a conductor and he died on 12.8.1991. He was paid Government pension for the services rendered by him from 1.2.1964 to 14.9.75 in the Government service and pension was also paid for the said period till the date of his death, i.e., on 12.8.1991. Insofar as the petitioner's claim for pension, a reliance was placed upon G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dated 6.6.2002. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter it was averred as follows: "14) ....the pension for the Government services rendered in Tamil Nadu State Transport Department was paid to the employee till his death i.e. on 12/8/1991 even though he ceased to be Government Employee from 1975 as per the Government pension Rule but the wife of the deceased employee the petitioner herein eligible for pension under the Employee Pension Scheme and the same is being paid to her. 15) ...... the payment of pension is governed by the rules and the same cannot be extended according to will and pleasure. As such that the more beneficial pension has to be extended to her is not acceptable as there is no specific rules." 12. There was no attempt made to challenge the earlier order passed by this court. On the contrary they were implemented by the State Government. While the claim of the petitioner to receive both pensions are not acceptable in the light of the order passed by the division bench in Lokanayaki's case, as option was given to exercise either one or the other pension scheme and that permission was also granted as follows : 24) ....However she is not entitled to the Employees' Provident Fund pension. The first respondent is permitted to deduct the Employees' Provident Fund Pension paid to the appellant for the period from 13.8.2004, as well as the amount paid to her husband by way of Employer's contribution viz. Rs.50,788/-from the arrears payable to her. In case the arrears amount is not sufficient to recover the amount indicated above, it is open to the respondents to recover the balance from the monthly pension payable to the petitioner in 36 equal installments." 13. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand disposed of with the direction similar to one issued by the division bench in W.A.No.1246 of 2009 dated 18.8.2010 and that the petitioner should exercise her option. A liberty is given to the department to withhold the family pension and deduct the amount already paid and grant family pension as per the Pension Rules in case the petitioner opts for the same. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner should not further delay in exercising her option in terms of the order passed by the division bench. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.