Financial crunch cannot justify discrimination in the payment of entitled Dearness Allowance to pensioners.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Sub-Application filed under Contempt Jurisdiction praying to re-open the contempt Petition in C.P.No.830 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014.)

1. This Sub-Application filed to re-open the contempt Petition in C.P.No.830 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the consequent orders passed in the Writ Petition and the Contempt Petition No.830 of 2014, the revision of the Dearness Allowance as sanctioned by the Government has not been extended to the pensioners and the family pensioners by the 2nd respondent except for the revision of the Dearness Allowance taken place in second half of the year of 2015. Subsequently, four revision of DA's had taken place. Whereas, the revisions and enhancement of Dearness Allowance has not been implemented by the 2nd respondent nor any decision taken by the 2nd respondent Trust and accordingly, the petitioner's namely Pensioner's/ Family pensioner's has been deprived of their pensionary benefits as sanctioned by the Government with reference to the periodical enhancement of Dearness Allowance. An Advocate notice was sent to the respondents on 11.11.2017 by stating that non-payment of enhancement of Dearness Allowance as ordered by the Government will be resulting in violation of the orders passed in the Contempt Petition No.830 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014 in as much as this Court issued directions that whenever the orders issued by the 1st respondent for enhancement of Dearness Allowance to the Government employees, subject will be placed before the Board of Trustees and the resultant Dearness Allowance would be made. However, no such exercise has been carried out by the 2nd respondent based on which the pensioners and family pensioners of the State Transport Corporation have been deprived of their pensionary benefits though it is granted by the State Government.

3. The retired pensioners and family pensioners of the State Transport Corporations are entitled for revision of Dearness Allowance as and when it is ordered by the Government. The undertaking given before this Court that the revision of Dearness Allowance will be granted as and when the orders passed by the Government by placing the same before the Board of Trustees. However, without compliance of the same, the 2nd respondent issued a reply notice dated 21.11.2017 by stating that the order passed by this Court in the Contempt Petition only relates to substitution of the procedure of seeking approval from the Government with a new procedure by which the approval to be obtained from the Board of Trustees in order to avoid delay, whereas, the corpus of TNSTCPF is almost exhausted the payment of monthly pensioners is the challenge and there is on external fund sources or internal fund generation available to adverse for increase in the rate of Dearness Allowance and accordingly, it is informed that there is no scope to which grant of enhancement of Dearness Allowance to the retired pensioners/ family pensioners.

4. In the reply submitted by the 2nd respondent dated 21.11.2017, the orders passed in the Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.830 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014 has been grossly violated since the orders of the State Government granting enhancement of Dearness Allowance have not been placed before the Board of Trustees for granting enhanced Dearness Allowance to retired pensioners/family pensioners of State Transport Corporation of the employees of State Government have been given the benefit of revision of Dearness Allowance. Further, the persons who are in service in Transport Corporation given the benefit of revision of Dearness Allowance as per the Government orders. While so, there is an deliberate and intentional violation of the orders of this Court, the 2nd respondent has not even placed the Government orders relating to revision of Dearness Allowance in the Board of Trustees to sanction the same in favour of pensioners and family pensioners not even placed the Government orders relating to revision of Dea