Judgment : This Writ Petition is preferred by a 51-year-old daughter of Sri Syed Khundmir, who had retired on 31.03.1991 after serving as a Personnel Officer with the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (AP TRANSCO) at Hyderabad. Prior to his death Sri Syed Khundmir filed his pension papers with the AP TRANSCO disclosing his family particulars. He declared Smt. Sajida Bano as his wife and also disclosed the names of his six daughters and one son, duly mentioning the respective dates of birth of those individuals. It is not in dispute that Sri Syed Khundmir received all his pensionary benefits so long as he was alive and he appears to have died on 16.09.2004. Thereafter, Smt. Sajida Bano, the widow of Sri Syed Khundmir has been paid the family pension by the AP TRANSCO, as she is eligible to receive the same. Smt Sajida Bano died on 06.03.2012. Therefore, the writ petitioner herein has filed an application for grant of family pension to her on the ground that she was the unmarried daughter of Sri Syed Khundmir and hence, she is entitled to be granted the family pension. She also enclosed family members certificate given by the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad District, where the names of five daughters and the son of Sri Syed Khundmir were noted. Excepting the petitioner, rest of the daughters were declared as house wives being married women, by the Tahsildar. The son of Sri Syed Khundmir was also married and he is employed in a private organization as per the said certificate. Since the petitioner was the only family member, who remained unmarried, she sought for payment of family pension. That was rejected by the AP TRANSCO, through their communication dated 31.07.2012. It is observed in the said order that the details of the family members and their status submitted by the original pensioner, namely Sri Syed Khundmir are not tallying with the family particulars furnished by the petitioner herein and hence, the AP TRANSCO has declared that the petitioner is not eligible for sanction of family pension as the unmarried daughter, in terms of T.O.O Ms. No. 333 dated 12.11.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that this action of the respondents is grossly illegal and is contrary to the scheme adopted by the AP TRANSCO for sanction of pension as well as family pension. No. 333 dated 12.11.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that this action of the respondents is grossly illegal and is contrary to the scheme adopted by the AP TRANSCO for sanction of pension as well as family pension. Further, the particulars relating to the petitioner, if, have been furnished by the father wrongly, the petitioner is very much entitled to have correct information reflected in the records relating to the pensioner and hence, the respondents have committed a gross irregularity in not taking into account and consideration the status certificate furnished by the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda, who did so upon conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter. Heard Ms. Sridevi, learned counsel deputizing for Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh has announced its policy decision through T.O.O Ms. No.333, dated 12.11.2010 adopting the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O. Ms. No. 315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 07.10.2010 in respect of the employees of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board who joined the service of the Transmission Corporation prior to 01.02.1999 and presently working in AP TRANSCO and also pensioners/family pensioners of AP TRANSCO. The order passed by the State Government in their G.O.Ms. No. 315 Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 07.10.2010 is placed at page 42 of the paper book filed along with the Writ Petition. In paragraph 3 thereof, the recommendations made by the IX Pay Revision Commission together with the Government of India orders and the requests of various associations have been summarized and they read as under. “The Ninth Pay Revision Commission, after due consideration of the existing Family Pension Rules and Government of India orders and the requests of various Associations, inter alia, recommended the following in respect of sanction of Family Pension. “The Ninth Pay Revision Commission, after due consideration of the existing Family Pension Rules and Government of India orders and the requests of various Associations, inter alia, recommended the following in respect of sanction of Family Pension. (i) Categorisation of eligible beneficiaries of family pensioners into two categories as per the orders issued by Government of India in their O.M. F.No.38/37/08- P&PW (A); dated 02.09.2008 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, New Delhi; (ii) Continuation of payment of family pension to the childless widow even after her remarriage as per the orders issued by Government of India in their O.N. F.No.38/37/08- P&PW (A), dated 02.09.2008 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, New Delhi; (iii) Payment of family pension to the widowed/divorced daughter, irrespective whether she became widowed/divorced daughter either before or after the retirement of employee, provided the spouse predeceases the pensioner and sons/daughters become ineligible for the Family Pension; and (iv) Sanction of family pension to the daughters of deceased pensioners who became widowed/divorced either before or after the date of issue of the G.O.Ms.No.523 i.e. 22.06.2004.” Thereafter, in paragraph 4 of the said order, it was declared that the government decided to accept the above recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission and hence, issued the orders contained therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, unmarried or widowed or divorced daughters are organized to fall in category II, whereas a son/daughter (including widowed daughter) up to the date of his/her marriage, remarriage or till the date he/she starts earning or till the age of 25 years, whichever is the earliest, is classified to fall in category I. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the case of the petitioner falls under category II, irrespective of the fact that she is beyond 25 years of age as of now, she must be paid the family pension by the respondents. I am afraid, this contention does not hold any merit. As was noticed supra, IX Pay Revision Commissioner has recommended payment of family pension to the widowed/divorced daughter, irrespective whether she became widowed/divorced either before or after the retirement of the employee, provided the spouse pre-deceases the pensioner and the other sons/daughters become ineligible for family pension. I am afraid, this contention does not hold any merit. As was noticed supra, IX Pay Revision Commissioner has recommended payment of family pension to the widowed/divorced daughter, irrespective whether she became widowed/divorced either before or after the retirement of the employee, provided the spouse pre-deceases the pensioner and the other sons/daughters become ineligible for family pension. Therefore, for grant of family pension in favour of either an unmarried daughter or a widowed daughter or a divorced daughter, the condition pre-requisite was the death of the spouse of the pensioner. If the spouse of the pensioner is surviving him/her after his/her death, it is that spouse, who is eligible to receive the family pension, but not any other person, either falling in category I or category II. As was noticed supra, in the instant case, the pensioner Sri Syed Khundmir died on 16.09.2004 leaving behind Smt. Sajida Bano as his widow. It is Smt. Sajida Bano, who has been settled and paid family pension, as she is rightly entitled to be paid the same. Unfortunately, Smt Sajida Bano died on 06.03.2012. Hence, the question of payment of family pension to any other member in the family would not simply arise. Family pension, to my mind, is liable to be paid either to the spouse of the deceased pensioner, provided such a spouse is surviving, or to any other eligible family members organized to fall in category I and category II of G.O.Ms.No.315. For others to secure eligibility for sanction of family pension, the spouse must pre-decease the pensioner but not otherwise. In the instant case, the spouse of the pensioner Smt. Sajida Bano survived him and hence, the petitioner is not eligible to be granted family pension and the fact that the Corporation rejected her candidature on some other that ground is of not much of a legal significance for her claim to be upheld. I therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.