ORDER : PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent pertaining to the orders in impugned Mu.Mu.No.36170/Pe.O..S(1)/2015 dated 27.11.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents forthwith to pay family pension to petitioners with arrears and interest award costs. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking to quash the impugned order in Mu.Mu.No. 36170/Pe.O..S(1)/2015 dated 27.11.2015 issued by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith pay family pension to petitioners with arrears, interest and award costs. 2. The claim for life time family pension of the daughter of the deceased employee one Sundarrajan has been rejected under the impugned order. 3. The Government instructions for the sanction of life time family pension for the daughter of the deceased employee reads as follows: 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent before this Court, the first respondent stated that the petitioner had produced income certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar with a bar code on 17.10.2015, wherein it is specifically stated that her annual income was Rs.48,000/- with a validity period of one year [17.10.2015 to 17.01.2016]. But suppressing the same, the petitioner had once again produced another income certificate dated 23.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar of Usilampatti, disclosing that her annual income is Rs.24,000/- within a gap of two months from the date of issuance of earlier income certificate which is dated 17.10.2015. 5. As per the Government instructions, for grant of family pension to a daughter, the monthly income of the daughter should not exceed Rs.2550/-. Since two income certificates have been produced by the petitioner within a gap of two [2] months which discloses major variation, this Court is of the considered view that the first respondent under the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of family pension in respect of her deceased father one Sundarrajan, who was employed with the second respondent Municipality. 6. In the result, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.