Retired TNEB Employee To Get DA On Late Husband’s Family Pension Alongside Her Own, Madras HC Directs

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to DA on the family pension arising from her deceased husband’s service with the Transport Corporation.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay the eligible DA on the petitioner’s husband’s family pension forthwith.

It also directed

The order did not separately specify payment of arrears from 10 December 2018 or interest, despite those remedies being sought in the prayer.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner had served as a Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and retired on 31 January 2010.

p. 2

Her husband, a Conductor with the respondent Transport Corporation, retired on 28 February 2011 and died in 2018.

p. 2

The petitioner received family pension following his death, but the respondents did not pay Dearness Allowance (DA) on that pension.

p. 2

She sought DA from 10 December 2018, arrears, interest, and continuing payment of DA.

p. 2

The Court noted that the issue had been decided in her favour in W.P.(MD) No. 35410 of 2025 and that the Corporation’s appeal against that decision had been dismissed in W.A.(MD) No. 556 of 2026.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to DA on the family pension arising from her deceased husband’s service with the Transport Corporation.

p. 2, 6

ii.2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay that eligible DA.

p. 6

03Law Applied

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

The Court relied on its decision in W.P.(MD) No. 35410 of 2025, affirmed in W.A.(MD) No. 556 of 2026, which held that a family pensioner’s separate employment or pension does not, by itself, justify denying DA on family pension.

pp. 3–6

That Division Bench referred to the Government of India memorandum dated 2 July 1999 and Tamil Nadu G.O.Ms. No. 112 dated 24 March 2008, which provided for DA on family pension in the circumstances addressed there, and to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajay Kumar Sharma, (2016) 15 SCC 289.

pp. 3–6

The Court also noted that review applications concerning related Division Bench decisions were pending, but treated the prior decision in the petitioner’s case as controlling.

pp. 4–6

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s claim to be governed by the same issue already decided in W.P.(MD) No. 35410 of 2025 and upheld on appeal.

pp. 4–6

Although the third respondent referred to interim orders in pending review proceedings concerning other decisions, those proceedings had not displaced the ruling in the petitioner’s case.

pp. 4–6

Applying that ruling, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the eligible DA on her husband’s family pension.

pp. 4–6