Madras HC Orders Family-Pension DA For Widow Of Retired Transport Corporation Employee

The petitioner’s husband, a Senior Grade Tradesman with the second respondent Transport Corporation, retired on 31 December 2018 and died on 29 May 2026.

The petitioner receives family pension but was denied dearness allowance (DA) on that pension.

She sought a writ of mandamus for DA, arrears and interest, and continuing DA at revised rates.

The Court noted that it had previously allowed a similar petition in W.P.(MD) No. 35410 of 2025, and that decision had been affirmed in W.A.(MD) No. 556 of 2026.

The Corporation referred to review applications pending before a Division Bench in related matters.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus to enforce an entitlement.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 556 of 2026, which referred to the Government of India memorandum dated 2 July 1999 and G.O.Ms. No. 112 dated 24 March 2008 concerning DA on family pension for employed family pensioners; the Division Bench held that denial on the ground of the recipient’s employment was contrary to that Government Order.

The Court also noted the earlier suspension of DA on family pension under G.O.Ms. No. 191, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 16 March 1996, and the precedents cited in the Division Bench decision, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajay Kumar Sharma, (2016) 15 SCC 289, and W.A. Nos. 2422 and 2424 of 2022.

The Court treated the petitioner’s claim as governed by its prior decision in W.P.(MD) No. 35410 of 2025, which the Division Bench had affirmed in W.A.(MD) No. 556 of 2026.

Although the Corporation relied on an interim order made while review applications were entertained in related matters, the Court noted that those reviews remained undecided and that the prior Division Bench ruling on the relevant issue remained applicable.

It also relied on its subsequent decision in W.P.(MD) No. 28224 of 2026.

Accordingly, it directed payment of the DA for which the petitioner was eligible.

It left the respondents at liberty to pursue their remedy in the pending review application and made no order as to costs.

The order did not expressly grant the separately sought arrears, interest, or continuing payment at future revised rates.