JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the second respondent, Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and Town Urban Development Department, in connection with Letter No. 13227/OP1-2/2014-2, dated 07.08.2014, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and quash the same and direct the second respondent to pay arrears of family pension from the date of death of the deceased pensioner i.e. from 06.01.2000 to 25.07.2005. 1. The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension with effect from the date of the death of the pensioner. 2. The petitioner is the guardian representing her husband, who is mentally disabled Mr. R. Gopinathan. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Mr. R. Gopinathan, the son of Late Mr.T.V.Ramchandran. The petitioner states that her husband is mentally disabled person and he was declared as mentally ill by the learned Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as guardian of her husband. 3. Late father-in-law of the writ petitioner Mr. T.V. Ramchandran was employed as Under Secretary in the office of the Housing and Town Urban Development Department, Chennai and was receiving pension till his death on 06.01.2000. The husband of the writ petitioner became mentally ill from the year 1994 and he was undergoing treatment in the Institute of Mental Health. On account of the mental ill health of the husband of the writ petitioner, the family was fully depending on her father-in-law income. After the death of her father-in-law, there is no male member to look after the family, consisting of writ petitioner and three children. The mother-in-law of the writ petitioner pre-deceased her father-in-law and her husband was the sole legal heir of the deceased father-in-law. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation to grant family pension and the authorities considered the case of the writ petitioner and accordingly, granted the family pension in proceedings dated 08.01.2007 with effect from 25.07.2005. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that family pension itself was granted in proceedings dated 08.01.2007. However, the family pension was granted only from 25.07.2005, instead of granting from the date of the death of her father-in-law i.e., on 06.01.2000. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that family pension itself was granted in proceedings dated 08.01.2007. However, the family pension was granted only from 25.07.2005, instead of granting from the date of the death of her father-in-law i.e., on 06.01.2000. Once the family pension is sanctioned and the eligibility of the pensioner in receiving family pension is confirmed, the said family pension is to be granted from the date of the death of the pensioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Even, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the request of the petitioner for grant of family pension is already considered and the family pension was granted on 25.07.2005. The grant of family pension was considered as a special case and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim retrospective benefits of family pension from the date of the death of her father-in-law. 6. The mentally disabled legal heirs of the pensioner are entitled for family pension for their life. Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 stipulates grant of family pension of the mentally disabled legal heirs of the pensioner. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband is the sole legal heir of the deceased employee/pensioner and accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner in her capacity as a guardian was considered and the family pension was sanctioned. While sanctioning the family pension, it is to be sanctioned from the date of the death of the pensioner and the day fixed for grant of family pension i.e., on 25.07.2005 is erroneous and not in accordance with the Pension Rules. Once the entitlement of the family pension is decided and the family pension is sanctioned, then such sanctioning must be accorded from the date of which they are eligible to get the family pension. In the present case, the pensioner died on 06.01.2000 and therefore, the family pension is to be granted with effect from 07.01.2000 onwards. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent is in violation of the Pension Rules as the family pension is to be granted from the date of which the pensioner died and in the present case, it was granted only with effect from the year 2005. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent is in violation of the Pension Rules as the family pension is to be granted from the date of which the pensioner died and in the present case, it was granted only with effect from the year 2005. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent in Letter No. 13227/OP1-2/2014-2, dated 07.08.2014, is quashed and the respondents are directed to sanction and disburse the family pension to the writ petitioner with effect from 07.01.2000, with all consequential family pension benefits and pay arrears to the writ petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With this direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.