JUDGMENT (Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for granting regular family pension as per the rule 49 of the Pension Rules from the date of death of the petitioner''s husband w.e.f. 08.06.2005 and grant full family pension with all benefits.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for granting regular family pension as per the rule 49 of the Pension Rules from the date of death of the petitioner''s husband w.e.f. 08.06.2005 and grant full family pension with all benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s husband namely V.Subramanian was initially selected and appointed as Village Assistant in the year 1981 on consolidated pay/salary and thereafter, he was brought into regular establishment on 01.06.1995. Subsequently, he was given time scale of pay in the post of Village Assistant from 01.06.1995 onwards. While serving in the said post, he died on 07.06.2005, leaving behind his wife/petitioner and children as legal heirs. This being so, after his demise, the respondents have not granted the family pension at the rate of basic pay along with dearness allowance. However, the petitioner was given only Rs.150/- as exgratia instead of family pension. When the petitioner approached the authority and enquired about the non-sanctioning of family pension at the rate of basic pay of her demised husband, the respondents orally stated that since, her husband has not completed ten years of qualifying service, the family pension at the rate of basic pay of her demised husband could not be paid. 2.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not count her husband’s past service along with regular service for granting family pension, however, in the case of one Mrs.Anjalam, wife of late Raju (Worked as Village Assistant), the respondents have granted family pension. The petitioner’s husband has completed ten years of regular service, even then, the respondents have not granted family pension to the deceased family at the rate of basic pay of the deceased. Hence, she has submitted a representation dated 25.03.2019 before the respondents, requesting to grant full family pension and other death benefits to her at the rate of basic pay of her deceased husband. Hence, she has submitted a representation dated 25.03.2019 before the respondents, requesting to grant full family pension and other death benefits to her at the rate of basic pay of her deceased husband. Since, the representation has been made, no action was taken by the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Pension Rules, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension at the rate of 50% of basic pay of deceased husband. The reading of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 shows that the requirement of 10 years of service is only for granting pension, in so far as the employee, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation and in so far as granting of family pension to the deceased family, the completion of more than one year service is enough. In this case, the petitioner’s husband has completed 10 years of regular service, even then, the deceased family was not granted family pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that without following the Pension Rules, 1978 and without granting regular family pension to the petitioner at the rate of basic pay of the deceased, the respondents have granted only Rs.150/- as ex-gratia. Further, the petitioner has also made several representations to the respondents, but the same was not considered. Due to sudden demise of petitioner’s husband, now the deceased family is in starving condition without any financial assistant like family pension. Hence, he prayed this Court to direct the respondents to grant family pension as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,1938 from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband with effect from 07.06.2005 and grant full family pension with all benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court and the same is reads as follows: (i) Union of India and another Vs. Surender Singh Parmar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 404 . (ii) State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi & Others, reported in 2014 (7) Supreme 108 . (iii) Venkatramani Vs. Indian Bank rep. by its Chairperson & M.D., Chennai and another, reported in 2005-III-LLJ. 6. Surender Singh Parmar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 404 . (ii) State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi & Others, reported in 2014 (7) Supreme 108 . (iii) Venkatramani Vs. Indian Bank rep. by its Chairperson & M.D., Chennai and another, reported in 2005-III-LLJ. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner’s husband has worked as part time worker from the period 10.01.1982 to 31.05.1995 and on the said date, he was relieved from part time job and thereafter, from 01.06.1995, the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a permanent Village Assistant and his service was regularized. Hence, the period of part time service could not be counted from basic pay for family pension and other benefits. Moreover, the petitioner is entitled for family pension alone, only from the date of the regularization of the petitioner’s husband i.e., from 01.06.1995 and not other benefits. 7. The Accountant General/fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.12.2020. According to the counter, the petitioner is eligible for pensionary benefits as per Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Special Pension Rule vide G.O. (3D) 9 Revenue (Ser 7(1) Department dated 28.02.2006. The salient feature of the G.O. are enumerated below: (i) The Village Assistants in the Revenue Department were brought under Regular establishment with effect from 01.06.1995. They shall be paid salary in the non standard scale of Rs.1800-20-2240. The Government framed Rule for payment of pension, family pension and DCRG to those Village Assistants. (ii) They were deemed to have come into force on 01.06.1995 and shall be apply to the full time Village Assistants employed in the Revenue Department. A Village Assistant was eligible for pension if he had rendered a qualifying service of 10 years or more and been discharged or retired as per Rules. (iii) The family of a Village Assistant shall be paid Special Family Pension of lumpsum of Rs.150/- per month without D.A. in the event of death of Village Assistant within 10 years of service. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the petitioner''s husband was regularized on 01.06.1995 and his qualifying service for pension is 10 years, but he has net qualifying service of only 9 years 7 months and 18 days. 10. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the petitioner''s husband was regularized on 01.06.1995 and his qualifying service for pension is 10 years, but he has net qualifying service of only 9 years 7 months and 18 days. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Surender Singh Parmar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 404 , it was held that minimum qualifying period for pensionable service in India Navy is 15 years, but the respondent after completing 13 years 10 months and 13 days of service sought voluntary retirement. It is pertinent to note that in Indian Navy, 15 years is qualifying period for pension and it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India that the respondent after completing 13 years 10 months and 13 days of service, sought voluntary retirement and the same was rounded of to 14 years and he is eligible for pension. The competent authority fails to exercise its power for condoning shortfall in qualifying service. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi & Others, reported in 2017 (7) Supreme 108, in which it was held that the respondents have completed more than 19 years and 6 months are entitled to pension in terms of Regulation 14 and the length of service being more than 19 years and 6 months should be treated as 20 years in terms of Regulation 18 and entitled to benefits in terms of Regulation 29. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Venkatramani N. Vs. Indian Bank rep. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Venkatramani N. Vs. Indian Bank rep. by its Chairperson & M.D., Chennai and Another, reported in 2005-III-LLJ, in which it was held that employee having served for 14 years, 9 months and 7 days, opting to go on voluntary retirement under Bank''s Voluntary retirement scheme of 2000 and who denied pension on the ground of not putting minimum service of 15 years should be construed as one full year and thereby his service with the respondent could be held to be for a period of 15 years and also further held that the arrears of pension payable to the pensioner were liable to be settled with interest of 10% per annum. 13. In the present case on hand, the petitioner''s husband had a net qualifying service of 9 years 7 months and 18 days, after deducting the nonqualifying service of 4 months and 12 days. By applying the ration laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and the Division Bench of this Court, the shortage of 4 months and 12 days can be rounded of to 10 years and treated as 10 years of qualifying service for grant of family pension to the petitioner. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner''s husband has qualifying service of 10 years and the petitioner is entitled for all family pensionary benefits and the respondents are directed to grant regular pension as per Rule 49 of the Pension Rules, 1938 from the date of death of the petitioner''s husband with effect from 08.06.2005 and grant full family pension with all benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 15. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.