JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner-Lakshmi has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent-The Additional Sub-Treasury Officer, Bhavani Post, Bhavani, Erode District in Ka.Mu.Aa.30/2008/A4 dated nil/5/2008 (signed on 12.5.2008) to quash the same with the further direction to the respondents herein to continue to pay to the petitioner the Civil (Service) Family Pension, PPO No.86840/FA, together with arrears with effect from May 2008 along with the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension, in pursuant to the representation dated 22.9.2009. 2. (i) Mr. R. Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the wife of late Perumal, the Freedom Fighter who fought against the foreign rulers to get independent India and in recognition of his participation in the freedom movement, the Government of India through the State of Tamil Nadu was paying freedom fighters pension and the petitioner’s husband was also enjoying the freedom fighter pension as other freedom fighters. But, after his death, the petitioner was eligible to get the freedom fighter pension and has been receiving the same till this date. (ii) Whileso, it was stated that the petitioner’s husband while receiving the freedom fighter pension was also employed in the State civil service. However, after reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service and on retirement, he was also paid with the Civil (Service) Pension and his Civil (Service) Pension Number is PPO No.86840/FA. Therefore, in the above background it was further submitted that when the petitioner’s husband was receiving two pensions during his lifetime, namely, freedom fighter pension given by the Government of India through the State of Tamil nadu and also Civil (Service) Pension as a retired Government Servant, the petitioner being the wife of Government servant late Perumal is also entitled to receive both the Civil (Service) Pension and the freedom fighter pension. But, unfortunately, when the petitioner was receiving both pensions above mentioned, the 4th respondent citing Auditor General's Report of 2006 and 2008 and referring a communication dated 2.6.2006 issued by the first respondent-Secretary to Government, Public (Political Pension-IV)Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 erroneously stopped paying the Civil (Service) Family Pension-PP86848, stating that the petitioner is receiving the freedom fighter pension and therefore, she cannot be paid Civil (Service) Family Pension. As the petitioner is getting only meager amount by way of family pension she is not able to meet her requirements. Therefore, when the petitioner has given a representation dated 22.9.2009, she was not able to get any response, hence, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has come to this court by filing this writ petition to quash the impugned order on the ground that the same is ex-facie illegal. (iii) Adding further, it was stated that the 4th respondent has miserably failed to consider that the two pensions granted to the petitioner are for two different reasons, namely, the petitioner's husband was given freedom fighter pension in recognition of his sacrifice and involvement in achieving independent India from the foreign rulers, and the Civil (Service) Pension has been given by the State Government in recognition of his service rendered to the State Government as a Government employee. Therefore, payment of one pension cannot operate as a bar for the payment of the other under any pretext. Further, when the petitioner’s husband after retirement from his State service was given two pensions, namely, freedom fighter pension and also Civil (Service) Pension, the petitioner, being the widow of late Perumal is also legally entitled to get these two family pensions. (iv) Finally, in support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in VELLITHAYAMMAL V. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (POLITICAL PENSION-IV) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT (MADURAI BENCH) (2009 Writ Law Reporter 587) to say that it cannot be the intention of the Government to curtail of his civil pension on account of his receipt of freedom fighters' pension, since the Civil (Service) Pension is the regular payment made by the State to its retired employees. Hence, the receipt of freedom fighter pension is not a disqualification to receive Civil (Service) Pension. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3. (i) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in support of the impugned order to restrict only one pension to the widow petitioner. Mr. Hence, the receipt of freedom fighter pension is not a disqualification to receive Civil (Service) Pension. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 3. (i) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in support of the impugned order to restrict only one pension to the widow petitioner. Mr. N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that after the death of the petitioner’s husband, she has been in receipt of Central Freedom Fighter Family pension in Pension Payment Order No.4363/9 at Sub-Treasury, Bhavani and another State Freedom Fighter Family Pension at Sub-Treasury, Erode and she has been in receipt of State Civil Family Pension. When she is receiving three family pensions, she is not eligible to get family pension admissible under rule 13(B) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Therefore, the fourth respondent-Additional Sub-treasury Officer issued a letter dated 9.5.2008 to the petitioner to appear at the Sub-Treasury, Bhavani Office and inform her option to any of the family pensions as she cannot get three family pensions. In view of sub-rule 13-B, in G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (Pension), dated 6.1.1986, family pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person, who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible therefor under any other pension rules. In the light of the abovesaid G.O., the Accountant General has raised an objection. But the petitioner neither appeared before the Sub-Treasury, Bhavani nor exercised any option to forego any one of the Family Pensions, hence the Civil Family Pension in Pension Payment Order No.86840/FA has been stopped from pension for May 2008 onwards, he pleaded. (ii) Further, it was stated that the petitioner has been receiving Central Freedom Fighter Family Pension, State Civil Family Pension at Sub-Treasury, Bhavani and State Freedom Fighter Family pension at Sub-Treasury, Erode. She has not opted to forego any of the family pension for the letter written to her by the Additional Sub-Treasury Officer on 9.5.2008. As per the order of the Government in their letter No.51996/PPII/2005-4 Public (Political Pension-II) dated 2.6.2006 in Rule 13(B) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 the State Civil Family Pension in Pension Payment Order No.86840/FA is stopped from May 2008 onwards. Hence, stoppage of State Civil Pension is absolutely in order. On that basis, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Hence, stoppage of State Civil Pension is absolutely in order. On that basis, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. (i) Admittedly, in the present case, during the life time of the petitioner’s husband late Perumal for having participated in the freedom movement, in recognition of his participation the Government of India paid Central Government Freedom Fighter's Pension. In addition to that, he was enjoying the freedom fighter pension from the State. That apart, as he was employed in the civil service, after his retirement, he was also getting Civil (Service) Pension. In all, the petitioner’s husband late Perumal was enjoying three pensions. After his death, the petitioner who is the wife of late Perumal was also paid with Central Freedom fighter family pension, State Civil Family pension, and State Freedom Fighter family pension. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 underwent an amendment. As a result, G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.1.1996 was passed and sub-rule 13(B) has been inserted, and thereby, Family Pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of family pension or is eligible therefor under any other pension rules. In view of that, the 4th respondent issued a letter to the petitioner to exercise her option to any of the family pension as she cannot get three family Pensions. Therefore, the question raised in the writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to get three family pension. (ii) A similar issue has come up for consideration before this Court in VELLITHAYAMMAL V. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (POLITICAL PENSION-IV) DEPARTMENT (2009 Writ L.R. 587). This Court while dealing with the same G.O.Ms.No.23/Pension, Freedom Fighters, Civil Service/Pension, along with Rule 13(B) has held that the petitioner therein is entitled to civil service pension as a matter of right, and the freedom fighters pension cannot be termed as pension within the meaning of Rule 13(B) for the reason that the freedom fighter's pension is granted to him as per the scheme framed by the Government. Rule 13(B) inserted as per G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (Pension) Department in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India amending the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is given as under: "Rule 13(B) Family Pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of Family Pension or is eligible therefor under any other pension rules, provided that a person, who is otherwise eligible for Family Pension under this rule, may opt to receive family pension under this rule if he foregoes family pension admissible for many other rules." Although a close reading of the above rule makes it clear that receiving two kinds of civil pensions is prohibited, it also further makes clear that there is no restriction for payment of military pension to an employee, who got employment in the civil service after his retirement from the military service. Further, the family pension referred to under Rule 13(B) is only civil pension and it is nothing to do with Freedom Fighters' Pension. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the same can be termed as freedom fighter's pension on account of the service rendered in the civil service. Moreover, it was observed that the family pension is referred under the civil pension and it has nothing to do with the pension payable to a freedom fighter. On this basis, this Court by quashing the impugned order refusing to grant one pension, further directed the respondent therein to pay freedom fighters' pension in addition to the Civil Service Pension which the widow was receiving on account of the service rendered by her deceased husband. In this context, it is also relevant to extract paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the order cited supra hereunder: "18. Pension is a regular payment made by the State to its retired employees. The pension is payable to the employees in accordance with the relevant Service Rules. As per Rule 13(B), prohibition is only for receiving two kinds of civil pension and in fact, there was no restriction for payment of military pension to an employee, who got employment in the civil service after his retirement from the military service. The family pension referred to in Rule 13(B) is only civil pension and it has nothing to do with Freedom Fighters' Pension. 19. The family pension referred to in Rule 13(B) is only civil pension and it has nothing to do with Freedom Fighters' Pension. 19. The Freedom Fighters' Pension granted to a freedom fighter as per the Scheme framed by the Government, by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as a pension on account of a service rendered in the civil service. The service rendered by the freedom fighter to enable him to receive the Freedom Fighters' Pension is a service rendered to the nation. This pension is confined to those freedom fighters who have sacrificed their lives and those freedom fighters who have the opportunity to see the free India and their widows. 20. The first respondent has given a too narrow interpretation to Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The first respondent has not taken any efforts to ascertain as to whether the Freedom Fighters' Pension was a charity. The petitioner was receiving only a legitimate pension which was sanctioned by the Government as per the provisions of a scheme. The petitioner is entitled to the civil service pension as a matter of right, as her husband was a Government Servant. Therefore, the Freedom Fighters' Pension cannot be termed as a pension within the meaning of Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978." This Court having considered an identical and similar issue above, has held that Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was inserted only for the purpose of avoiding two pensions to the petitioner and therefore, the abovesaid rule has got nothing to do with the pension payable to the freedom fighters and also for the reason that the freedom fighter's pension payable to the freedom fighter as per the scheme framed by the Government cannot be termed by any strength of imagination as pension on account of service rendered in the civil service. The above observations clearly apply to the case of the petitioner herein also. When this court has already held that the object in granting the freedom fighters pension was only to honour the freedom fighters and to mitigate the suffering of those who had given every thing to the country in the hours of its need, the freedom fighter's pension, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as a pension on account of the service rendered in the civil service. Above all, if the argument of the respondent is accepted that the receipt of Civil Service Pension will disentitle a freedom fighter to get his Civil Service Pension, this will amount to deprivation of the National honour bestowed upon the freedom fighters for their supreme sacrifice. Further, the logic adopted by the 4th respondent in the present case to restrict one pension to the widow after the death of her husband when the very same department has paid three family pensions to the petitioner’s husband late Perumal will not stand to any good reasoning, because when the petitioner’s husband during his life time was allowed to receive all the three family pensions, the petitioner, being a widow, is also entitled to receive all the pension benefits. Therefore, as I highlighted above, when the respondent department has not restricted the number of family pensions to the petitioner’s husband during his life time, they cannot restrict the family pension to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to pay freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner in addition to the Civil (Service) pension, which she is receiving on account of the timely service rendered by her late husband to our Nation. 5. Accordingly, W.P.No.3743/2010 is allowed. No costs. Connected pending M.P.No.1/2010 is closed.