Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.6383 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.7388 of 2007. 2. The petitioner's father was working as Shristadar. He died on 20.02.1995, leaving behind his wife, four sons and three daughters. The petitioner is the youngest daughter and she is unmarried. According to the petitioner, all her sisters and brothers got married. The petitioner's mother, was receiving family pension and she also passed away in the year 1978. 3. According to the petitioner, from her childhood, she was suffering from heart problem. She is aged 52 years at the time of filing the original application. Till her mother was alive, the petitioner was living with her with the help of family pension received by her mother. After the death of her mother, she made a representation to the respondents and requested to extend family pension to her. However, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 15.12.2000. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Original Application. 4. The second respondent has filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit filed, it is stated that as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, an unmarried daughter is entitled to family pension upto 25 years or up to the date of her marriage, whichever is earlier. In the case of physically challenged or mentally retarded persons, who are not able to earn their livelihood, family pension could be extended for their lifetime. But the petitioner does not come under the aforesaid category. 5. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the reply affidavit, it is averred as follows:- "(6). Under the provision of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, Family Pension could be extended among other persons to the daughter of the deceased Government servant upto the age of 25 years or up to the date of her marriage whichever is earlier. Further, if the son/daughter is physically handicapped or mentally retarded and unable to earn his/her livelihood, Family Pension could be extended for their life time as per G.O.788 Finance dated 3.8.89. (7) Thus the case of the applicant who is of 52 years of age and admittedly suffering from heart disease does not fall in the above two categories. Further, if the son/daughter is physically handicapped or mentally retarded and unable to earn his/her livelihood, Family Pension could be extended for their life time as per G.O.788 Finance dated 3.8.89. (7) Thus the case of the applicant who is of 52 years of age and admittedly suffering from heart disease does not fall in the above two categories. According to G.O.Ms.No.635 Finance (Pen) Department, dated 26.07.1994 pension payment orders to be issued in future shall include all the members of the family including disabled/mentally retarded/handicapped children. In the case of existing pensioners they shall send a list of disabled children to the pension sanctioning authority, indicating whether the child is handicapped, mentally retarded or not. Obviously, the G.O. is for the future pensioners and existing pensioners and the applicant who is seeking extension of Family Pension, is not covered in either of the case." 6. In the light of the stand taken by the second respondent, the claim of the petitioner for family pension cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.