BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
R. Valarmathi – Respondent
WA. (MD) No. 556 of 2026, C.M.P. (MD) No. 5240 of 2026
Decided On : 30-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of family pension denial post-husband's death despite employment. (Para 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. appellant argues against dual da payment citing rule 20a. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent relies on g.o.ms.no.112 allowing da for employed pensioners. (Para 6) |
| 4. rule 20a inapplicable to family pensioners; g.o.ms.no.112 governs. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. distinguishes prior cases; allows da on family pension independently. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
1. Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.35410 of 2025 dated 10.12.2025.
2. The first respondent/writ petitioner has challenged the order passed by the third respondent/Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., vide his proceedings dated 13.11.2025 and consequential direction to the official respondents to revise the family pension of the writ petitioner along with dearness allowance and disburse the family pension with dearness allowance including arrears thereof with an accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. It is the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that her husband namely, Mr.A.Ravichandran was working as Deputy Manager in the third respondent/Transport Corporation. He retired from service on 31.07.2022. He received pension and retirement benefits. He died on 13.12.2022. Upon his demise, the pension was converted into family pension. The petitioner being the wife of the deceased pensioner have been receiving the family pension. She is working as Deputy Director/PA (Agri) to District Collector, Theni. The family pension is being disbursed without adding the proportionate Dearness Allowance, which is admissible to the family pensioner. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.327, Finance (Pension) Department dated 21.10.2019 has revised the rate of Dearness Allowance to the pensioner as well as the family pensioner. However, the writ petitioner being paid family pension without Dearness Allowance. Hence, she made representation dated 04.11.2025 to revise her family pension by adding Dearness Allowance. The third respondent therein rejected the request and passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2025. Hence, the writ petition. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Government of India in Office memorandum dated 02.07.1999 has issued orders allowing dearness allowance on family pension to the employed family pensioners at the rates applicable from time to time. In view of the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No. 112, dated 24.03.2008 decided to allow Dearness Allowance on family pension in the case of employed family pensioners. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondent therein/ The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust has preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the first respondent is employed as a Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Agriculture)/Deputy Director of Agriculture and she is drawing government salary which have specific component for dearness allowance. As such the component matching the price index is being taken care of the of the employer of the first respondent. The Dearness Allowance is a cost of living adjustment and would be a percentage of the basic pay which is calculated on percentage of the basic salary as well as pension. The concept of paying Dearness Allowance is to compensate the inflation to mitigate on the purchasing power of the first respondent. The purchasing power of the first respondent is being taken care of by her employee by providing Dearness Allowance along with her salary. The first respondent though appointed independently is receiving salary from the government and in addition to that she is receiving 53% Dearness Allowance based on her salary. Therefore, paying Dearness Allowance would amount to dual payment.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit tha
Employed family pensioners entitled to Dearness Allowance on family pension despite separate employment salary DA, as per G.O.Ms.No.112 (2008), Rule 20A inapplicable.
Employed family pensioners are entitled to dearness allowance despite employment status based on relevant governmental orders.
Pensioners re-employed under government rules are not entitled to dual Dearness Allowance on both pension and salary.
The court affirmed that dearness allowance for pensioners is a statutory right under Rule 20A and cannot be altered by administrative orders, emphasizing the finality of judicial decisions.
The court provides a directive by way of mandamus to government authorities to consider a pending representation regarding statutory pension entitlements and allowances within a stipulated timeframe,....
Financial crunch cannot justify discrimination in the payment of entitled Dearness Allowance to pensioners.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.