ORDER : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in O.A. No. 226/2010, is called in question in this writ petition by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Association, New Delhi. 2. The respondents herein are the legal representatives of the deceased employee Annappayya Holla. Deceased employee was working as Canteen Manager in Bavishyanidhi Departmental Canteen in the office of Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Bangalore. He was terminated from service on 10.6.1988 on certain grounds. He raised an industrial dispute questioning the order of his termination which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore. During the pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, Annappayya Holla expired on 15.8.1998. Consequently, his legal representatives were brought on record. By the award dated 9.8.2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal-cum-Labour Court set aside the order of termination. Since the workman had died in the meanwhile, the Labour Court directed the Organization to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased workman towards backwages of the deceased employee. The said order fixing the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal representatives as backwages of the deceased was confirmed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 524/2006 and 134/2006 on 11.9.2006. The said order dated 11.9.2006 passed by this Court has attained finality. Consequently, the Provident Fund Organization paid Rs.1,18,756/- (Rs. 1,00,000/- plus interest) to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as compensation awarded by the Labour Court. Subsequently, the first respondent herein (wife of the deceased employee) made a representation to the Organization for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the family, which came to be rejected by the Organization. The said order of rejection was questioned by the legal representatives of the deceased employee (respondents herein) before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 424/2007. The original application, O.A. No. 424/2007 came to be allowed holding that the deceased was deemed to have been in service on 15.8.1998. The Tribunal further directed the petitioners herein to make payment of DCRG and family pension within a period of 90 days with the interest at the rate at 9% per annum. The said order was called in question by the Organization before this Court in W.P. No. 12320/2009. The Tribunal further directed the petitioners herein to make payment of DCRG and family pension within a period of 90 days with the interest at the rate at 9% per annum. The said order was called in question by the Organization before this Court in W.P. No. 12320/2009. However, subsequently, the dispute arose between the parties once again with regard to the date from which the respondents are entitled to the family pension as well as about the amount of DCRG, etc. The matter once again reached the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 226/2010, which came to be disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.2.2012 with the following conclusion:- "10. A perusal of the statement filed along with the memo dated 15.11.2011 by the respondents, indicates that the calculation of interest is also not correctly done and when the respondents paid the entire amount in lump sum, they ought to have calculated the interest on the amount from the due date, i.e., 16.8.1998 onwards, month by month and year after year which was admittedly not done in the present case. 11. In the circumstances, for the above said reasons, the OA is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure A-9 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-fix the DCRG and family pension on the notional pay of the deceased employee as on 15.8.1998 and to recalculate the amounts and to pay the difference of amount by making a fresh calculation within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondents are also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,18,756/- deducted by them vide the impugned Annexure A-9 dated 26.4.2010, to the applicant. All the amounts shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the respective due dates till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs." 3. Merely because a sum of Rs.1,18,756/- being the amount of compensation paid in terms of the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court towards backwages of the deceased employee, it cannot be said that the respondents are not entitled for family pension. What was paid in the form of compensation was only with regard to backwages, i.e., wages prior to 15.8.1998 (prior to the death of the deceased employee). What was paid in the form of compensation was only with regard to backwages, i.e., wages prior to 15.8.1998 (prior to the death of the deceased employee). Since the deceased employee was deemed to have been the Central Government servant as held by the Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased employee are entitled to the family pension from the date of the death of the deceased employee. The Tribunal, on facts having found that the amount of DCRG was not fixed in accordance with law, has directed the petitioners herein to re-fix DCRG and to pay family pension on the notional pay of the deceased employee on the date of his death, i.e., 15.9.1998. Certain other directions are also issued as mentioned supra. Admittedly, the deceased employee was deemed to have been the Central Government employee and therefore his legal representatives are entitled to the family pension from the date of the death of the deceased employee, so also they are entitled to the amount of DCRG. Since the impugned order is just and proper, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.