(3) CTC 630 [J.Kanniga Parameswari vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasury and Accounts Office, Panakal Park, Chennai and others] . Paragraph No.9 of the said decision reads as follows: “ 9. As far as this case is concerned, only on technicalities, family pension has been denied to the petitioner and apart from this, though a stand has been taken by the respondents and also the petitioner was informed that in Form-E, nomination has not been made and therefore, she is not eligible for any benefit, the object of the family pension scheme is to enable the family of the deceased Government servant to survive even after his death. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the third respondent and after his retirement, he was given all the terminal benefits and till his death, he has also received pension. As such when a welfare measure has been introduced with the purpose to enable the family of the deceased Government to survive, that cannot be defeated standing on mere technicalities. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, in my opinion, the object of the scheme will be defeated. That apart, when the power of relaxation has been given, using that power of relaxation, the condition of nomination can be relaxed and the petitioner's request of family pension can be considered and the family pension can be sanctioned to the petitioner.”
