JUDGMENT K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of an employee, who was covered under the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The coverage of the petitioner, through the employer, is not disputed. The fact that the petitioner's son died-in-harness and that his dependents were eligible to pension as per the nomination or otherwise under the Pension Fund Scheme, is also not disputed. The petitioner's son, while in service, on the coverage under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and Pension Scheme, had nominated his father under paragraph 16(5)(a) for drawing the pension on his death. The petitioner's father had also drawn the pension for five months, after which he is also said to have passed away. It was in such circumstances, the petitioner sought for extension of the pensionery benefit to herself, as the dependent mother of the deceased employee. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation has relied on clause (a) of sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16 wherein it is stated that the nominee shall be entitled to receive monthly pension equal to the monthly widow pension, as admissible under sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of sub-paragraph (2). According to the learned Standing Counsel that would act as a restriction in any other person being granted a pension. If a nomination is so made by an employee covered under the scheme, then the pension would be payable only to such nominee and not to any other person on the death of such nominee, is the contention made. 3. This Court, however, cannot find any such restriction in clause (a) of paragraph 16(5). The restriction in clause (a) is insofar as the nominee being disentitled to draw pension if the employee has acquired a family after such nomination being effected. Hence, an inadvertent omission by an employee to revoke the nomination, after his marriage was of no consequence and that alone would not deprive his family of the family pension due under the scheme. Hence, an inadvertent omission by an employee to revoke the nomination, after his marriage was of no consequence and that alone would not deprive his family of the family pension due under the scheme. Relevant would be clause (aa), which reads as under:- "(aa) If a member dies leaving behind no spouse and/or an eligible child falling within the definition of family and no nomination by such deceased member exists, the widow pension shall be paid under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of sub-paragraph 2 either to dependent father or dependent mother as the case may be. On grant of pension to such dependent father and in the event of death of the father pensioner, the admissible pension shall be extended to the surviving mother life long." 4. In the case of dependent parents, if there is no nomination given by the employee, the pension would have to be first granted to the father and upon the father's death to the mother, till the latter's life time. Merely for the reason that the employee had nominated his father, the benefit conferred under clause (aa) cannot be taken away for reason only of the employee having made a nomination. The dependent mother cannot be denied such pension on the death of the father pensioner; which the dependent mother is entitled to under clause (aa) of sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 16. At the risk of repetition clause (a) relied on by the learned Standing Counsel is, in fact, a restriction of payment to a nominee, if in the life time of the employee, after the nomination, the employee acquires a family. The spirit and tenor of the scheme is to provide succour to the immediate dependents and not to exclude a valid claim by a dependent legal heir on the basis only of a nomination. A restriction insofar as the pension to be granted to the dependent mother cannot be read into the provision of the scheme. There is no warrant for such an interpretation and clause (aa) of the beneficial scheme has to be interpreted broadly and liberally and in favour of the dependents of the deceased employee. 5. On the strength of the above interpretation, the petitioner is declared as entitled to the family pension on account of Provident Fund Account No. KR/KNR/18099/13 in the name of her son, the deceased Shan Chacko. 5. On the strength of the above interpretation, the petitioner is declared as entitled to the family pension on account of Provident Fund Account No. KR/KNR/18099/13 in the name of her son, the deceased Shan Chacko. Ext.P4, hence, shall be set aside. The petitioner's application shall be allowed and the computation shall be made and the pension paid along with the arrears. The petitioner shall resubmit the application or file fresh application with a period of two weeks from today, upon which the Provident Fund Organisation shall take steps to pay the entire arrears of pension due under the Pension Fund Scheme, as declared herein above, within a period of one month from that date. If the arrears are not paid within that one month, then interest shall run at 12% from the date of which the pension became due and the Organization shall also pay such interest and then recover it from the officer who caused such default and delay. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.