Transport Driver’s Widow To Get Dearness Allowance On Family Pension, Madras HC Orders Payment

In brief

The question

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

The court held

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

It also directed

The respondents were left at liberty to pursue their remedy in the pending review application. No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner’s husband, a Senior Grade Driver with the second respondent Transport Corporation, retired on 30 June 2022 and died on 17 April 2026.

¶ 1 · pp. 1–2

The petitioner, his wife, received family pension but was denied dearness allowance (DA) on it. She sought a mandamus directing payment of DA, arrears, interest, and future DA revisions.

¶ 1 · pp. 1–2

The Court noted that the same issue had been decided in the petitioner’s favour in an earlier writ petition and that the decision was affirmed on appeal. The Corporation relied on pending review applications concerning similar decisions.

¶ 2–4 · pp. 2–4

02Issues

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

¶ 1, 6 · p. 2, 5

ii.2. Whether pending review proceedings and an interim order in other matters prevented the Court from granting relief in this petition.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

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

The Court relied on its earlier decision in W.P.(MD) No. 35410 of 2025, affirmed in W.A.(MD) No. 556 of 2026, and its order in W.P.(MD) No. 28224 of 2026.

¶ 2, 6 · p. 2, 5

The Division Bench decision cited there held that DA on family pension is linked to the deceased employee’s service and is distinct from DA received by a family pensioner in respect of her own employment; denial on the ground of the pensioner’s employment was contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 112 dated 24 March 2008.

¶ 2 · pp. 2–4

That ruling referred to the Government of India memorandum dated 2 July 1999, G.O.Ms. No. 191 dated 16 March 1996, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajay Kumar Sharma, (2016) 15 SCC 289.

¶ 2, 5 · pp. 3–5

04Reasoning

The Court treated the entitlement to DA on family pension as an issue already resolved by its earlier decision, which had been affirmed by a Division Bench.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 4–5

Although the Corporation pointed to review proceedings and an interim order in other cases, the Court observed that those proceedings concerned a different Division Bench decision and remained pending; they did not displace the decisions directly governing the present issue.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 4–5

Applying those authorities, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the eligible DA on her husband’s family pension.