SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
K.Jeyanthi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chairman of All State Transport Undertaking and Principal Secretary, Transport Department – Respondent
WMP(MD)No.1270 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr.A.K.Thangavelu
For R1: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader
For R2 and R3: Mr.K.Ramaiah
For R4: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

Employed family pensioners are entitled to dearness allowance despite employment status based on relevant governmental orders.

Headnote:This case pertains to a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order that denied dearness allowance on the family pension after the petitioner's husband, an employee, passed away. The court finds that the impugned order, based on misconceptions of applicable regulations, is unsustainable. The relevant issues include the entitlement of employed family pensioners to dearness allowance, influenced by state and central government orders. The court allows the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case. (Para 1)
2. application of government orders regarding dearness allowance. (Para 2)
3. conclusion on the entitlement to dearness allowance. (Para 3)

ORDER

The petitioner's husband was working as a Special Grade Driver in the respondent Transport Corporation and he died on 21.05.2023, while he was in service. The petitioner is working as Head Mistress in a Primary School. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner is receiving the family pension. However, she has been denied Dearness Allowance on the family pension. Therefore, she submitted a representation dated 10.11.2025 to the respondents, seeking to revise the family pension by adding the dearness allowance. Vide the impugned proceedings dated 25.11.2025, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she is working as Head Mistress, she is not entitled for dearness allowance on family pension and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 24.03.2008 is applicable only to the pensioners and not to the family pensioners. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.In fact, the dearness allowance on family pension was suspended by the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.Ms.No.191, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 16.03.1996. However, the Government of India, in its 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 memorandum of the Government of India dated 02.07.1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 24.03.2008, decided to allow dearness allowance on family pension in the case of employed family pensioners. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for providing dearness allowance on the family pension on the ground that since she is working as a Head Mistress, she is not entitled for dearness allowance on family pension, cannot be sustained.

3.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top