Pensioners re-employed under government rules are not entitled to dual Dearness Allowance on both pension and salary.

ORDER :

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 22.04.2014 in Letter No.Ka.No.44P2/ TNSTC U O NI PO/2014-88 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2.Heard Mr.G.Vijay Priyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Gauthamaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on 20.04.1974 in the respondent-Corporation on compassionate ground, after the death of her husband on 19.07.1972, and that the petitioner was sanctioned with the Family Pension. While so, she subsequently superannuated from the post of Selection Grade Assistant on 31.05.2001. The learned counsel would submit that though the petitioner was sanctioned with two pensions, viz., Family Pension, as well as her regular pension, in respect of her regular pension, no Dearness Allowance was paid. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that since her retirement, no Dearness Allowance was paid along with her regular pension. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, and direct the respondent to pay her pension along with Dearness Allowance with effect from 01.06.2001 qua from the date of her superannuation.

4.Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and would contend that they have sanctioned both Family Pension and the regular Pension. Since the petitioner had opted for commutation of pension, the respondent has deducted a sum of Rs.862/- in her monthly pension and has been paying the remaining amount of Rs.2,995/- as pension and that such pension is paid along with Dearness Allowance. Further, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would contend that the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition with misconception of facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6.While looking at the impugned order, the impugned order refers about the Rule position. According to the Rules, if a person is re-employed after retiring from pensionable job, he/she will be eligible for Dearness Allowance to anyone of his/her pension amount as per Rule 20A of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund.

7.But, the petitioner would contend that she has not been sanctioned Dearness Allowance to her regular pension amount. While looking at the counter statement, the respondent had stated that the petitioner had been receiving her regular pension along with Dearness Allowance from July 2001 to till date. In support of their contention, they have also submitted the records as to the pension payment details. According to the above Pension payment details, there is an entry with regard to the payment of pension along with Dearness Allowance.

8.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner without taking into consideration of commutation of pension amount, under misconception, she preferred the writ petition, as if she receives no Dearness Allowance for the pension.

9.At this juncture, it is also relevant to extract Rule 20A of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees’ Provident Fund:-

“Rule 20.A-DEARNESS ALLOWANCE TO PENSIONERS

(i) In addition to the basic pension, the pensioners are eligible for nominal Dearness Allowance at the rates that may be determined by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

(ii) If a pensioner is re-employed under the Central Government or a State Govern