JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Sri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.3, the claim of family pension made by the petitioner has been invalidated. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.3 and has assailed the same in the instant writ petition. 4. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the U.P. State Electricity Board. The father of the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.08.1990. The father of the petitioner was drawing his pension regularly after his superannuation. The father of the petitioner expired on 19.11.2011. The petitioner is a divorced lady. The petitioner was legally divorced from her husband on 23.11.2013. The petitioner was fully dependent on her late father. The petitioner has founded her claim for family pension on the foot of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008. 5. The relevant provisions of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 are extracted hereunder: ^^ fo"k;% osru lfefr mRrj izns'k] 2008 dh laLrqfr;ksa dks Lohdkj fd, tkus ds QyLo:i fnukad 01-01-2006 ds mijkUr lsok fuo`Rr@e`r dkfeZ;ksa dh isa'ku@xzsP;qVh@ifjokfjd isa'ku ,oa jkf'kdj.k dh njksa dk iqujh{k.k fd;k tkukA mijksDr fo"k; ij v/kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd jkT;iky egksn; us osru lfefr mRrj izns'k] 2008 dh laLrqfr;ksa dk Lohdkj djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj ds flfoy is'kujksa@ikfjokfjd ias'kujksa ds isa'ku@ikfjokfjd isa'ku@xzsP;qVh ,oa isa'ku jkf'kdj.k dh njksa dks fuEu izdkj la'kksf/kr fd, tkus ds vkns'k fn, gSA ;g vkns'k 01-01-2006 ls izHkkoh le>s tk;sxs rFkk fu/kkZfjr izfd;k ds vuqlkj iqufu/kkZj.k@lek;kstu fd;k tk;sxkA 2&¼1½ izHkkoh gksus dh frfFk& bl vkns'k ds v/khu dh tk jgh O;oLFkk;sa mu jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa ij ykxw gksxh tks fnuakd 01-01-2006 dks vFkok mlds mijkUr lsokfuo`Rr gq, gS vFkok e`r gq, gSA fnukad 01-01-2006 ds iwoZ lsok fuo`Rr@e`r ljdkjh lsodksa dh isa'ku@ikfjokfjd isa'ku ds iqujh{k.k ds lanHkZ esa foLr`r izfd;k ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls vkns'k fuxZr fd;s tk jgs gSA 6. The order assailed in the writ petition dated 30.09.2014 mentions that the cut-off-date for grant of family pension benefits under the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 was 01.01.2006. The order assailed in the writ petition dated 30.09.2014 mentions that the cut-off-date for grant of family pension benefits under the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 was 01.01.2006. The impugned order after referencing the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 further records that the benefit of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 for grant of family pension will be given to those employees who had superannuated or died after the cut-off-date, namely, 01.01.2006. The order finds that the father of the petitioner had superannuated on 31.08.1990, which is before the cut-off-date. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of family pension in terms of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008. 7. A perusal of the terms of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 shows that the benefits of family pension are to be made available to the families of employees who superannuated or died after 01.01.2006. 8. The competent authority while passing the order dated 30.09.2014 has clearly misdirected itself in law and has overlooked relevant facts while determining the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of family pension. The order only considers the date of retirement of the petitioner which was prior to the cut-off-date, i.e. 01.01.2006. The order dated 30.09.2014 assailed in the writ petition fails to consider the fact that the father of the petitioner expired in the year 2011 much after the cut-off- date of 01.01.2006. The petitioner is clearly eligible for grant of family pension in terms of the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 since her father had died subsequent to the cut-of-date of 01.01.2006. 9. I am fortified in taking the above said view by the law laid by this Court in the judgment and order dated 21.05.2012 in the case of Km. Kalpana Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.24798 of 2012. In the case of Km.Kalpana Singh (supra) this Court while interpreting the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 held thus: "Having considered the aforesaid submissions and having perused the records it is evident that the impugned order proceeds on a complete misreading of the Government Order dated 8.12.2008. Clause 2(1) of the Government Order recites that the said Government Order will apply to all such employees who have either retired or died after 1st January, 2006. The impugned order only takes into account the date of retirement of the employee and not her date of death. Clause 2(1) of the Government Order recites that the said Government Order will apply to all such employees who have either retired or died after 1st January, 2006. The impugned order only takes into account the date of retirement of the employee and not her date of death. This in the opinion of the Court is a complete misreading of the said Government Order and therefore the conclusion in the impugned order dated 29.2.2011 is erroneous. The petitioner's mother died after 1.1.2006 i.e. on 22.8.2006." 10. The observations by this Court in the case of Km.Kalpana Sinha (supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case. 11. In the light of the facts found and the legal narrative in the preceding paragraphs, the order impugned dated 30.09.2014 becomes unsustainable in law and cannot stand. 12. The order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Allahabad Region, Allahabad is quashed. 13. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3-Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Allahabad Region, Allahabad. 14. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh in the light of the consistent with the observations made in the preceding paragraphs and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Km. Kalpana Sinha (supra). The petitioner shall make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2. 15. The respondent No.2 shall decide the representation of the petitioner for grant of family pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation. The writ petition is allowed.