Judgment 1. The father of the petitioner is one Mahalingam. The first wife of Mahalingam one Tmt. Mariammal joined the service as Anganwadi Helper in Noon Meal Centre No.510 at Pulianthoppu, Chennai, in the year 1976. Mahalingam married the sister of Mariammal one Rukmani, since he had no child through Mariammal. The second wife, children of the second wife, Mahalingam and Tmt.Mariammal were living together. Tmt.Mariammal died on 07.04.2002, while she was in service. Before the death of Mariammal, the father of the petitioner, Mahalingam died on 17.10.1992. Before the death of her husband Mahalingam, Mariammal nominated the children born through the second wife in the service records. The photo identity card was also given to the petitioner. Since no terminal benefits was given to the petitioner, he filed O.A.No.927 of 2003 seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay all terminal benefits including the pensionary benefits to him. On abolition of the Tribunal, the O.A. stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.12561 of 2007. 2. The third respondent filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that since all the step-children of the deceased Government servant are above 25 years, they are not entitled to family pension. It is also the case of the third respondent that in the absence of adoption deed, no person is eligible to receive the terminal benefits. 3. The written instructions from the fourth respondent is produced before this Court. The written instruction is to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension, as he was above 25 years at the time of death of the Government servant. It is further stated that as per Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the petitioner is entitled to claim DCRG, if he was the nominee of the deceased Government servant and in the absence of nomination, the eligible members of the family are entitled to DCRG, as per Rule 46 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that page no.8 is the nomination of the petitioner, his brother and sisters, as the nominees under the Family Benefit Fund Scheme by the deceased Government servant Tmt.Mariammal. The same was counter-signed by the Child Development Project Officer, Project-VI, Chennai, the third respondent herein. 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is seen from the typed-set of papers that page no.8 is the nomination of the petitioner, his brother and sisters, as the nominees under the Family Benefit Fund Scheme by the deceased Government servant Tmt.Mariammal. The same was counter-signed by the Child Development Project Officer, Project-VI, Chennai, the third respondent herein. In view of the said nomination, I am of the view that the petitioner, his brother and two sisters are equally entitled to the DCRG and Family Benefit Fund. 6. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the Family Benefit Fund to the petitioner, his brother as well as two sisters as per nomination that is enclosed at page No.8 of the typed-set of papers. 7. In view of the aforesaid nomination, the third respondent is directed to send proposal to the fourth respondent for payment of DCRG in equal share to the petitioner, his brother and two sisters, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if already DCRG is not sanctioned. On receipt of the proposal from the third respondent for the payment of DCRG, the fourth respondent is directed to authorise the same in equal share to the petitioner, his brother and two sisters within four weeks thereafter. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.