Judgment 1. Though counter affidavit is not filed in this matter, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 26.08.2014 of the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking for family pension. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- Her father A.Muthuraku was employed as Office Assistant at the fourth respondent office and died on 25.02.2005, after retirement. Hence, the petitioner's mother, namely, M.Erulayi was provided with family pension. The petitioner's husband died on 17.05.2009 leaving the petitioner as widow. The petitioner was entirely depending upon her mother, who also passed away on 17.05.2012. Hence, she applied for family pension to the respondent on 18.09.2012 as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.11.2011, wherein it is contemplated that widowed daughter of the deceased pensioner/family pensioner is entitled to get family pension subject to certain conditions. G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.2013 ordered to provide family pension to the widowed daughters. The Block Development Officer, Nilakottai Town Panchayat, forwarded the petitioner's application for family pension to the first respondent on 29.02.2012. However, the third respondent passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner's husband died on 17.05.2009 prior to the death of her mother/family pensioner who died on 17.05.2012. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the Government has come forward to give family pension to the widowed daughter also, the present impugned order has been passed with the wrong understanding of the G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.2013. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order came to be passed by wrong understanding of G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.2013 and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the third respondent for considering the claim of the petitioner afresh. 6. Heard both sides. 7. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the impugned order came to be passed by wrong understanding of G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.2013 and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the third respondent for considering the claim of the petitioner afresh. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Considering the fact that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.325, dated 28.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.2013 extending the benefit of family pension also to the widowed daughter of the pensioner/family pensioner, I do not think that the third respondent is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by stating that her husband died much prior to the family pensioner, namely, her mother, without taking note of the fact that the death of the petitioner's husband had taken place after the death of her father. Therefore, the third respondent has wrongly understood the G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.01.2013 and passed the present impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the third respondent for passing appropriate orders considering the claim of the petitioner seeking for family pension. Such exercise shall be done by the third respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.