Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Mr.K.Chandran, who was employed as Medical Attendant in Government Primary Health Center, Bargur, Krishnagiri District – second respondent. He died on 09.05.2013 due to illness. The petitioner has two daughters, namely, Saranya and Ramya, who were born on 11.12.1987 and 25.07.1992 respectively through the deceased Chandran. 2. The third respondent, who is the second wife of the deceased Chandran, was also working in the Government Primary Health Center, Kannadahalli, Krishnagiri District, as an Ancillary Nursing Midwife. The third respondent has one son and one daughter through the deceased Chandran and the daughter was born on 12.11.1992 and the son was born on 22.01.1996. 3. The petitioner made a representation dated 18.06.2013 to the second respondent claiming family pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, shortly DRCG, and other terminal benefits and also claiming compassionate appointment to one of her daughters. 4. The third respondent also gave a representation to the second respondent claiming family pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits and also compassionate appointment to one of her children. 5. Since rival claims were made, the second respondent sought the opinion of the first respondent through his letter dated 22.07.2013. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the first and second respondents to sanction all the death benefits to her and her children due to the death of her husband and to consider the representation dated 18.06.2013 for granting the death benefits to them and for compassionate appointment to one of her daughters. 7. A counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating that her children are entitled to family pension and DCRG, as provided under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The third respondent has also pleaded to provide compassionate appointment to one of her children. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Though initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to claim that since the petitioner is the legally wedded wife, the petitioner and her two children are only entitled to the family pension and DCRG and other terminal benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the claim of the children of the third respondent for family pension and DCRG could also be granted, as provided under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 10. 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the following passage from paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit of the third respondent. “4. .... though I am not entitled to after-death benefits of the deceased K.Chandran, as per the Hindu Law of Succession and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules excepting me, my two children born through the deceased K.Chandran are entitled to both family pension (upto the age of 25 years) and death-cum-retirement-gratuity to an extent of 50 per cent.” 11. It is also relevant to extract the following provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, shortly, the rules. 12. Rule 49 of the Rules deals with family pension. Rule 49(7) of the Rules is relevant for this case and the same is extracted hereunder : “49.Family Pension - (1) to (6) ..... (7) (a)(i) Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. (ii) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child : Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of family pension shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares or if there is only one such widow, in full to her. (b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner : Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or share shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child. (c) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of the death of the Government servants or pensioner had she not been so divorced : Provided that on the share of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable such share or shares shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to other child or children otherwise eligible in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.” 13. In the light of Rule 49(7)(b) of the Rules, the fourth respondent sent a letter in No.AG(A&E)/PMI/III/3-5/2004-05/281, dated 08.03.2005 to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Finance (Pension) Department. The following passage from the letter of the fourth respondent is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder: “.... I am to invite attention to Government letter No.5592/Pen/2000-01 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 24.07.2000 wherein it was confirmed in Para (2) that the legal wife and illegitimate children born through second wife are to be treated as separate entitles (families). Hence, the family pension has to be issued in equal shares to the legal wife and the illegitimate children born through second wife.” 14. It seems that based on the said instruction, the third respondent filed the counter-affidavit that the children of the third respondent are also entitled to family pension. 15. It is relevant to take note of Rule 49(13)(b)(ii) for the purpose of this case and the same is extracted hereunder : “49. (13) For the purposes of this rule - (a) .... (b) family, in relation to a Government servant means - (i) .... (ii) son who has not attained the age of 25 (twenty-five) years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years including such son and daughter adopted legally and also such son or unmarried daughters born through illegitimate wife before retirement and such son or daughter born after retirement, on or after 1st January 1979.” 16. This rule also makes it clear that the illegitimate son and the illegitimate daughter are entitled share in the family pension. This rule also makes it clear that the illegitimate son and the illegitimate daughter are entitled share in the family pension. The son is entitled to family pension until he reaches the age of 25 years and the daughter is entitled to family pension until the age of 25 years or until she gets married. 17. In this case, both the son and daughter of the third respondent are entitled to the share in family pension since both of them have not completed the age of 25 years and the daughter is not married so far. In fact, I am of the view that when the marriage is not a condition placed for the son to get family pension, no such condition can be placed on the daughter. But I am not going to the said issue, since the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the third respondent. 18. However, Rule 49(8) of the Rules has made it clear that initially the daughter of the third respondent, who is elder, will get 50% of the share of the family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or till she gets married, in which event, her share would go to the son of the third respondent and he will receive 50% share of the family pension until completes the age of 25 years and thereafter, this 50% of share will be reverted back to the petitioner, who is the first wife. 19. The next issue is relating to payment of DCRG. The same is governed by Rules 45 to 48 of the Rules. Rule 48 of the Rules, provides that the Government servant shall make a nomination in the prescribed format. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is the nominee. The same is not in dispute. But the nominee shall distribute the amount to other persons, who are also entitled for the share in the DCRG, as per the Rules and as stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the DCRG can be granted to the children of the third respondent, as provided under the Rules, though the petitioner is the nominee, after adjusting the dues, if any, payable by the deceased Government servant to the Government. 20. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the Rule 45 (5) of the Rules. 20. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the Rule 45 (5) of the Rules. Rule 45(5)(iii) and (iv) are relevant for this case and the same are extracted hereunder: “45. Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity - (1). to (4) .... (5). For the purposes of this rule and Rules 46, 47 and 48 family in relation to a Government servant means; (i). Wife or wives, including judicially separated wife or wives in the case, of a male Government servant. (ii). husband including judicially separated husband, in the case of a female Government servant. (iii). Sons including step-sons, adopted sons and born through illegitimate wife ; (iv). unmarried daughters including stepdaughters, adopted daughters and unmarried daughters born through illegitimate wife; ........” 21. It is also relevant to extract Rule 48(3) and (4) of the Rules, which are also relevant for this case, as hereunder : “48. Nomination - (1) .... (2) .... (3) A Government servant may provide in the nomination - (i) that in respect of any specified nominee who predeceases the Government servant, or who dies after the death of the Government servants but before receiving the payment of gratuity, the right conferred on the nominee shall pass to such other person as may be specified in the nomination : Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the Government servant has a family consisting of more than one member, the person so specified shall not be a person other than a member of his family: Provided further that where a Government servant has only one member in his family and a nomination has been made in his favour, it is open to the Government servant to nominate alternate nominee or nominees in favour of any person or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not. (ii). that the nomination shall become invalid in the event of the happening of the contingency provided therein. (4). The nomination made by a Government servant who has no family at the time of making it, or the nomination made by a Government servant under the second proviso to clause (i) of sub-rule (3) where he has only one member in his family shall become invalid in the event of the Government servant subsequently acquiring a family, or an additional member in the family, as the case may be. ...” 22. ...” 22. In this case, after the petitioner was made as a nominee, the deceased Government servant acquired a family as defined under Rule 45(5) of the Rules. Hence, the nomination has become invalid and all the members, as per Rule 46 (1)(b)(i) of the Rules, are entitled to equal share. In this case, there is no dispute/issue in this regard, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not objected the claim of the children of the third respondent, as provided under the Rules. 23. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Rule 46(1)(b)(i) of the Rules as hereunder: “46. Persons to whom gratuity is payable - (1).(a) .... (b). If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not substitute, the gratuity shall be paid in the manner indicated below- (i). If there are one or more surviving members of the family as in clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 45 to all such members in equal shares; ....” 24. Though Rule 45(5)(iv) read with rule 46(1)(b)(i) excludes married daughters from the equal share in DCRG, I am of the view that the same is not valid, since marriage is not a ground to deny her equal share in DCRG, due to the death of her father. Marriage cannot be a ground to deny the share to a daughter, particularly, when the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which makes the daughter also liable to maintain the father. In addition to the said Act, the Hindu Successions (Amendment) Act, 2005, places equal right to both the son and the daughter in respect of the property. Therefore, I am of the view that irrespective of whether the daughter got married or not, the married daughter shall be treated on a par with the sons, particularly, after the Act, 2007 and the said Amendment Act 2005, came into force. 25. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the DCRG has to be apportioned among the petitioner, the children of the petitioner and the children of the third respondent in equal share. 25. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the DCRG has to be apportioned among the petitioner, the children of the petitioner and the children of the third respondent in equal share. Accordingly, after making recovery and adjustments of dues of the deceased, if any, as per the Rules 70 and 71 of the Rules, in the remaining amount, the petitioner and children of the deceased, namely, both the children born to the petitioner as well as the third respondent, are entitled to equal share of DCRG, that is each will get 1/5th share of the remaining amount of the DCRG. 26. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid rules and the instructions issued by the fourth respondent, a direction is issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to send a proposal in the light of my findings for payment of family pension as well as for payment of DCRG within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent is directed to authorize the payment, if the proposals are in terms of the Rules, as stated above, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 27. The last contested question is the one relating to the claim for compassionate appointment. Both the petitioner as well as the third respondent are claiming compassionate appointment to one of their children. 28. The learned counsel for the third respondent has relied on two judgments of the Division Benches and two judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court. In fact, those judgments do not render any assistance to the third respondent, particularly, since right to claim compassionate appointment by the children of the third respondent is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 29. Though all the children of the deceased are entitled to claim compassionate appointment, I am of the view that the children of the third respondent are not entitled to claim compassionate appointment due to the employment of the third respondent in Government service. 30. 29. Though all the children of the deceased are entitled to claim compassionate appointment, I am of the view that the children of the third respondent are not entitled to claim compassionate appointment due to the employment of the third respondent in Government service. 30. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the third respondent has sought to argue that the third respondent does not come under the purview of “family“ as defined under Rule 45(5) and 49(13)(b)(ii) of the Rules, that deals with the payment of DCRG and family pension and therefore, the children of the third respondent are entitled to claim compassionate appointment, without taking note of the employment of the third respondent. In my view, those rules do not deal with the compassionate appointment. While the third respondent claims compassionate appointment to one of her children, the scheme relating to compassionate appointment shall be considered to decide the issue as to whether employment of the third respondent in the Government could be a bar to stake her claim for compassionate appointment to her children. 31. G.O.Ms.No.560, Labour and Employment Department, dated 03.08.1977 deals with procedure of recruitment under compassionate appointment. Paragraph 4 of the G.O. makes it clear that the family of the deceased shall be in indigent circumstances. Para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.560, dated 03.08.1977 is extracted hereunder : “(4) The appointing authorities are responsible for satisfying themselves about the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased Government servant before appointment is offered. They need not insist on the production of any certificate from the applicant.” 32. Thus, when the claim for compassionate appointment was made by both sides in this case, the employment of the third respondent shall be considered for providing compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.560, dated 03.08.1977. 33. In fact, learned Government Advocate produced another clarification letter in Letter (Ms) No.34, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 16.04.2002. The letter dated 16.04.2002, excludes the claim of the compassionate appointment to the illegitimate children, while they are entitled for other benefits such as DCRG and family pension. 33. In fact, learned Government Advocate produced another clarification letter in Letter (Ms) No.34, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 16.04.2002. The letter dated 16.04.2002, excludes the claim of the compassionate appointment to the illegitimate children, while they are entitled for other benefits such as DCRG and family pension. I am not in agreement with the aforesaid Letter of the Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.04.2002, in view of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the third respondent and in fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the claim of the children of the third respondent and he only claims that the compassionate appointment shall be provided to the children of the petitioner, since the third respondent is in Government service and the petitioner and her family members are entirely depending on the earnings of the deceased Chandran. 34.0. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgments, relied on by the learned counsel for the third respondent : 34.1. The first judgment is Geetha Ramani Vs. District Educational Officer, reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 235. In that case, factually, the writ petitioner therein is the daughter born to the second wife of the deceased Government servant. The deceased Government servant died on 04.08.1986. The first wife died on 29.09.1990. the facts of the case make it clear that there was no rival claim for compassionate appointment. In those circumstances, in 1996, the writ petitioner therein was given compassionate appointment. After six years, the appointment made on compassionate ground was terminated on the sole reason that she was born to the second wife. In those circumstances, the Division Bench came to the rescue of the writ petitioner. 34.2. The next judgment is the judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered on 30.08.2007 in W.P.No.16211 of 2007 in K.Velankannan V. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others. In that case, the Government servant died on 23.10.1994 leaving behind him two wives and seven children of those two wives. The writ petitioner therein made an application for compassionate appointment with No Objection Letters from all the heirs of the deceased Government servant. Based on the No Objection Letters given by all the heirs of the deceased, he was given compassionate appointment in 1998. The writ petitioner therein made an application for compassionate appointment with No Objection Letters from all the heirs of the deceased Government servant. Based on the No Objection Letters given by all the heirs of the deceased, he was given compassionate appointment in 1998. After a period of 8 years, the compassionate appointment was sought to be cancelled on the ground that he was the son of the second wife. He approached this Court. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the sole ground that the cancellation of appointment was made in violation of principles of natural justice, since he was not heard before passing the order. The learned Single Judge also took note of the facts that all the legal heirs had given no objection and he had rendered 8 years of service. 34.3. The third judgment is H.Anwar Basha V. Registrar General (Incharge), reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 795 . In fact, it was not the case of two wives. In that case, there was only one wife. But the fact of the case was that the marriage of the government servant took place after the government servant had a child before marriage with his wife. The said son, who was born before the marriage, was given employment and the same was sought to be terminated on the ground that he was born before the marriage. The Division Bench of this Court has come to his rescue. The termination was interfered with in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 34.4. The last judgment is N.Pannerselvam V. The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and others, reported in 2008 (6) CTC 806. The writ petitioner therein was the son born to the second wife. There was no rival claim from the legally wife relating to compassionate appointment to the petitioner therein. There is no details as to whether the legally wedded wife has got children. The writ petitioner therein was given compassionate appointment on 23.07.1997. However, when the regularization of his service was sought after 11 years, it was denied on the sole ground that he was the son of the second wife. On the aforesaid facts, a direction was issued to the first respondent therein to regularise his services. 34.5. The writ petitioner therein was given compassionate appointment on 23.07.1997. However, when the regularization of his service was sought after 11 years, it was denied on the sole ground that he was the son of the second wife. On the aforesaid facts, a direction was issued to the first respondent therein to regularise his services. 34.5. Therefore, I am of the view that those judgments do not render much help to the third respondent, particularly, when it is not the case of the petitioner that the children of the third respondent is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. 35. But the claim for compassionate appointment is governed by the Government Order. The Government Order makes it clear that the indigent circumstances is the relevant factor for providing compassionate appointment. The deceased government servant had two wives, namely, the petitioner and the third respondent. While the petitioner is the house wife, the third respondent was working in the same department. 36. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the children of the third respondent are not entitled to compassionate appointment and the first and second respondents are directed to issue necessary orders in respect of the compassionate appointment to one of the children of the petitioner, based on the no objection letter of the another child and the petitioner. 37. In the result, (i). The petitioner shall be paid 50% of the family pension. The daughter of the third respondent, who is elder, will get the remaining 50% of the share of the family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or till she gets married, in which event, her share would go to the son of the third respondent and he will receive 50% share of the family pension until completes the age of 25 years and thereafter, this 50% of share will be reverted back to the petitioner, who is the first wife. (ii). The petitioner, the children of the petitioner and the children of the third respondent, are entitled to equal share of DCRG, that is, each will get 1/5th share of the amount of the DCRG, after making recovery and adjustments of dues of the deceased, if any, as per the Rules 70 and 71 of the Rules. (iii). (ii). The petitioner, the children of the petitioner and the children of the third respondent, are entitled to equal share of DCRG, that is, each will get 1/5th share of the amount of the DCRG, after making recovery and adjustments of dues of the deceased, if any, as per the Rules 70 and 71 of the Rules. (iii). The children of the third respondent are not entitled to compassionate appointment and one of the children of the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. (iv). The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to send a proposal in the light of my findings for payment of family pension as well as for payment of DCRG within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v). The fourth respondent is directed to authorize the payment, if the proposals are in terms of the Rules, as stated above, within a period of two weeks thereafter. (vi). The first and second respondents are directed to issue necessary orders in respect of the compassionate appointment to one of the children of the petitioner, based on the no objection letter of the another child and the petitioner. 38. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.