Judgment : 1. The case of the petitioner is that she is wife of late Gajendran, who worked as first class male attendant under the third respondent's management i.e., Institute of Mental Health, Chennai. The petitioner stated that she married her husband on 06.11.1990 and her marriage was registered in the Sub-Registrar Office at Sembium under Document No.207 of 1990. Petitioner's husband died on 07.08.1991. After the demise of the petitioner's husband, she approached the respondents 2 and 3 to provide family pension and other monetary benefits. The petitioner further submitted that she did not get any reply from the respondents 2 and 3. While so, one Zaburnnisa Begum raised an objection for getting family pension in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.3409 of 1995 before the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for a declaration that she is the only legally wedded wife of her deceased husband V.Gajendran and she is entitled to all the employment benefits payable to her late husband. According to the petitioner, there was an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from disbursing the family pension and other benefits of late V.Gajendran to any other persons pending disposal of the suit and the interim order dated 28.04.1995 was communicated to the Accountant General Office on 01.08.1995. From the judgment and decree itself, it is clear that the 3rd respondent herein represented by its Director, was a party to the suit. The petitioner did not say when the interim order was communicated to the respondents herein. However, from the communication of the third respondent to the office of the second respondent, dated 20.06.2000 it is clear that the interim order was communicated on 01.08.1995. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that on receipt of communication, pensionary benefits have been stopped from 01.08.2000 to Zaburnnisa Begum and it is the duty of the respondents not to disburse the family pension benefits until the communication is received from Government. From this, it is clear that the respondents have not committed any fault. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the pensionery benefits have already been paid to Zaburnnisa Begum. From this, it is clear that the respondents have not committed any fault. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the pensionery benefits have already been paid to Zaburnnisa Begum. But, again the petitioner seeks benefits for the same person and if the petitioner has any grievance upon non-issuance of pensionery benefits, based on her marital status with the deceased husband, it is for her to approach the civil court to get the relief and establish the same. 4. Heard the parties. 5. It is not in dispute pursuant to the interim order dated 28.04.1995 of the Civil Court, the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Gajendran. It is also not in dispute that from 01.08.2000, the petitioner has received pension. The case of the petitioner is that she is entitled to pension from 06.11.1990, i.e., from the date of marriage. The pension and other benefits will apply only after demise of the husband and not from the date of marriage. I would have accepted the contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent that if there was an interim order passed by the civil court restraining them from disbursing family pension and other benefits, and also if there was an order of preventing disbursement of terminal benefits in compliance of the said order, they ought to have informed the same to the 2nd respondent, not to disburse the pensionery benefits. Subsequently, it was communicated to the 2nd respondent, though not immediately after the date of the interim order, but, only on 01.08.1995, as seen from page 10 of the typed set dated 20.06.2000. Based on the letter, the 2nd respondent has rightly acted upon and complied with the interim order of the civil court. Since there is an interim order which has become final, after disposal of the civil suit, the Government will have to initiate appropriate action against the said Zaburnnisa Begum by filing a separate civil suit or any other course open to them in the manner known to law. There is no objection for the respondents for paying family pension benefits to the petitioner herein. 6. The learned Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 01.08.1995, said to have been issued to the 2nd respondent about the interim order. There is no objection for the respondents for paying family pension benefits to the petitioner herein. 6. The learned Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 01.08.1995, said to have been issued to the 2nd respondent about the interim order. But, the case of the 2nd respondent is that the communication was not received and if the same was received, they would have certainly stopped the pension benefits at that time itself. In order to show the bonafide, the 2nd respondent submitted the receipt of the letter dated 20.06.2000, to show that the pension benefits were stopped thereafter. 7. As there is a dispute with regard to the communication dated 01.08.1995 and there is no proof to the effect that the above said letter was received by the 2nd respondent, without going into the disputed question of fact, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits with effect from 01.08.1995, the date of communication of the interim order by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent by letter dated 20.06.2000. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the arrears of pension to the petitioner from 01.08.1995 till 31.07.2000. It is for the 3rd respondent to either approach the 2nd respondent or take appropriate steps against the said Zaburnnisa Begum and recover the money payable by the 3rd respondent to the writ petitioner towards the pension and other benefits for the period from 01.08.1995 to 31.07.2000. The 3rd respondent is directed to release the pension for the aforesaid period within a period of three month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.