Family Pensioner Appointed on Compassionate Ground Not Entitled to Duplicate Dearness Allowance, High Court Rules

A single-judge bench of Justice C. Kumarappan heard a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order dated 22.04.2014 issued by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations Employees Pension Fund Trust. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the impugned letter and to direct payment of dearness allowance (DA) on her regular pension with effect from 01.06.2001 together with arrears and consequential benefits.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no infirmity in the authority's order and that the factual materials demonstrated payment of DA where admissible. The Court examined Rule 20A of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees’ Provident Fund and observed that the statutory principle precluded a single person from drawing two dearness allowances. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "But, the principle behind the above Rule is that for a single person, there cannot be two Dearness Allowances. The very concept of Dearness Allowance is based upon the effect of inflation upon an individual employee." The judgment also quoted the Rule controlling entitlement: "If a pensioner is re-employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Government Undertaking or a Corporation or an Autonomous Body or a Local Fund in India or abroad, he shall not be eligible to draw dearness allowance on pension during the period of such re-employment."

Background

The petitioner, Tmt. P. Vanajakshi, was appointed on compassionate grounds on 20.04.1974 following the death of her husband and received family pension; she later superannuated from the post of Selection Grade Assistant on 31.05.2001 and became entitled to a regular pension. The petitioner contended that she did not receive DA on her regular pension since retirement and sought payment of DA from 01.06.2001. The pension trust and the Corporation responded that both family pension and regular pension had been sanctioned, that the petitioner had availed commutation which reduced the monthly pension amount, and that pension payments included DA; they produced pension payment records showing entries for payment with DA. The respondents also relied on Rule 20A which disallowed drawing DA on pension during re-employment, and on earlier precedents interpreting "re-employed" to include initial regular appointment.

The Court reviewed the Rule and relevant precedents (including discussion of authorities such as Union of India v. G. Vasudevan Pillay and the interpretation in Rekha Majhi) and found that the underlying legal principle was that a pensioner could not draw duplicate dearness relief where pay arising from re-employment or appointment provided DA. The Court noted the respondents' counter that the petitioner was "receiving family pension along with dearness allowance from the Government for the service render by her husband in the transport department" and that records showed payment of DA on the regular pension. In view of the legal and factual position, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Case Details: Case No.: WP No.36589 of 2015 Case Title: Tmt. P. Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation & Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations Employees Pension Fund Trust Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Vijay Priyan for Mr. R. Krishnaswamy For the Respondent(s): M/s. C. Gauthamaraj (for R1); Mr. C. S. K. Sathish (for R2)