The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government order cannot be applied retrospectively to take away rights accrued to an individual, as evidenced by Rule 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and relevant case law.

1. The petitioner is a widow whose husband had served in the Indian Army between 11.3.1954 and 28.2.1975 and he was in receipt Defence military pension. While he was in receipt of Military Pension, he joined as Watchman in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, under Ex-Serviceman quota. While he was in service, he died on 19.6.1983, leaving behind the petitioner herein as his legal heir. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner was paid Defence Family Pension at the rate of Rs.424/- and also Civil Family Pension at the rate of Rs.125/-. Subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu stopped the Family Pension given by them on the ground that one person could not get two family pension.

2. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4281 of 1992, questioning the order refusing to pay family pension by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed the said Original Application on 23.9.1994. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the Civil Family Pension was restored by the Tamil Nadu Government and the petitioner was paid accordingly. Again the family pension was stopped from 31.3.2001, based on letter No.6333/Pension/98-1 dt. 5.3.1998 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, addressed to the Director of Pension, Chennai, stating that the family pensioners are eligible to draw both civil family pension and family pension under any other pension rules for the period from 21.8.1996 to 5.1.1996 and from 6.1.1996 only either civil family pension or Defence family pension alone is payable subject to the option obtained from the family pensioner. This letter is based on G.O.Ms.No.22, Finance (Pension) Department dated 6.1.1996. Hence, the petitioner has filed O.A.No. 4403 of 2002 for a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 6.1.1996 will have only prospective effect and will not affect the case of the petitioner as it has already reached the finality and to direct the respondents to continue to pay Civil Family Pension without any deduction.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.22, Finance (Pension), dated 6.1.1996 will have retrospective effect and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to civil family pension from Tamil Nadu Government after 6.1.1996, if the petitioner has chosen to receive Defence Family Pension. It is stated that the petitioner should decide as to whether she is willing to receive Family Pension from Tamil Nadu Government or from the Defence Ministry.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband died on

19.6.1983 and after his demise, the petitioner has been in receipt of family pension from Tamil Nadu Government and also Defence Family Pension upto to 1989. When the Tamil Nadu Government stopped Family Pension, the same was interdicted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 23.9.1994, and the family pension was restored. But, the payment of family pension was once again stopped based on G.O.Ms.No.22 Finance (Pension) dated 6.1.1996.

6. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the aforesaid Government Order could not be applied retrospectively taking away the rights which accrued to the petitioner with effect from 19.6.1993. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments:

1. T.N.ARASU POKKUVARATHU MADURAI THOZHILALAR SANGAM Vs. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU reported in (2010) 8 MLJ 42;

2. SECT (ESTT) RAILWAY BOARD Vs. D.FRANCIS PAUL reported in (1996) 10 SCC 134;

3. UNITED OF INDIA Vs. V.D.DUBEY reported (2010) 2 SCC 225

7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has strenuously contended for dismissal of the Writ Petition and he has relied on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

8. It is to be seen that the petitioner's husband served in the Indian Army from 11.3.1954 to 28.2.1975, while he was receiving defence family Pension, he jo