JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Chepauk, Chennai, which reads as under:- "Tmt. A. Vaidehi, W/o (Late) Annangarachari, Retired Tahsildar has represented to this office thro' her petitions cited that her husband (deceased) is eligible for payment of pension from the date of his compulsory retirement on 22.2.83 till his death on 23.4.2000 and thereafter family pension has to be paid to her from 24.4.2000. She has also requested to provide a copy of reply to her above representation. 2. It is informed that in view of the High Court's order dt.29.3.06, the legal heirs of the deceased individual Thiru P.Annangarachari, are not entitled to any back wages including the arrears of pension for the period prior to the date of the orders of High Court (ie) 29.3.2006. However, the legal heirs are entitled for family pension w.e. From 29.3.06. The District Collector, Thanjavur, has been requested to settle the terminal benefits early." 2. The petitioner is the widow of P.V.Annangarachariar, who was appointed as a typist in the revenue department in the year 1953 and was promoted as Tahsildar in 1979. 3. The husband of the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 06.09.1980. On the charges having been proved, he was dismissed from service on 22.02.1983. 4. The order of dismissal was challenged by the late husband of the petitioner by filing W.P.No.6894 of 1984, which was transferred to the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A.No.558 of 1989. The learned Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal, against which review application No.50 of 1990 was filed, which was allowed and the order of dismissal was set aside and the case was remanded back to the District Collector for fresh decision. 5. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.07.1992, the order of dismissal was again passed, against which the husband of the petitioner filed an appeal. Appeal was also dismissed, which was challenged by him by filing O.A.No.2832 of 1993. The Original Application was again dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 6. The order was challenged in this Court, but during the pendency of the writ, the husband of the petitioner died, and the petitioner along with their children were brought on record as legal representatives. 7. The Original Application was again dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 6. The order was challenged in this Court, but during the pendency of the writ, the husband of the petitioner died, and the petitioner along with their children were brought on record as legal representatives. 7. This Court disposed of the writ petition, by setting aside the order of dismissal. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court reads as under:- "5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is the only allegation levelled against the petitioner during his 23 years of service and it also has not been opposed by the other side. That apart, the petitioner was also acquitted by the Trial Court as well as by this Court for the criminal case for the same allegation and as such, since the petitioner had died, I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal of service has to be converted into compulsory retirement, but at the same time, the petitioner's Legal Heirs are not entitled to any backwages. The respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits as well as family pension. The applicants cannot claim even the interest on the ground of belated payment of terminal benefits. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs." 8. After passing of the order by this Court, the impugned order has been passed, which is under challenge. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is not in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.37953 of 2005. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the reading of the order shows that this Court had directed the release of terminal benefits as well as family pension to the petitioner without interest, whereas the impugned order does not deal with the family pension from due date and also does not talk about terminal benefits to which the petitioner was held entitled to. The order contrary to the decision of this Court cannot be sustained in law. 11. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioner is entitled for family pension from the due date, i.e., from the date of death of her husband, viz., 23.04.2000. However, the respondents have denied the benefit of terminal benefits. 12. The order contrary to the decision of this Court cannot be sustained in law. 11. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioner is entitled for family pension from the due date, i.e., from the date of death of her husband, viz., 23.04.2000. However, the respondents have denied the benefit of terminal benefits. 12. In view of the clear direction of this Court, the stand of the respondents cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the impugned order cannot be sustained being contrary to the orders passed by this Court. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed, and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to release the family pension to the petitioner from 23.04.2000 along with terminal benefits, which may be due to the late husband of the petitioner, in view of the dismissal order having been converted to one of compulsory retirement. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on account of delay in payment. 14. The arrear of pension as also the terminal benefits due are directed to be paid to the petitioner within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.