One Person Can't Have Two Dearness Allowances: Madras High Court On Woman Claiming DA On Regular Pension Despite Receiving Family Pension

Justice C Kumarappan made the observations while dealing with the plea of a woman who claimed dearness allowance on her regular pension in addition to the dearness allowance on her family pension. The court noted that the principle behind Rule 20A(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Provident Fund was to ensure that a person cannot have two dearness allowances.

“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 court said.

Background

The woman submitted that she was appointed on April 20, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband. It was submitted that at the time of appointment, she was already receiving Family Pension.

In 2001, she superannuated from the post of Selection Grade Assistant. The woman's grievance was that though she was sanctioned with two pensions, Family Pension and regular pension, she was not being paid dearness allowance along with her regular pension. Thus, she sought directions to the Managing Director of Metropolitan Transport Corporation and the Administrator of the TN Transport Corporations Employees Pension Fund Trust to pay her pension along with dearness allowance.

The trust objected the plea and submitted that since the woman had opted for commutation of pension, a sum of Rs 862 was deducted from her monthly pension and the remaining amount o Rs. 2995 was being paid along with dearness allowance. The trust also submitted that the present petition was filed on a misconception of facts and sought to dismiss the plea.

The court noted that as per Rule 20A of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund, if a person is re-employed after retiring from a pensionable job, he/she will be eligible for dearness allowance on any of his/her pension amounts. In the present case, the court noted that the woman was receiving a family pension and was appointed on compassionate grounds, and hence the rule may not be directly applicable. The court, however, added that the principle behind the rule was to make sure that a single person did not receive two dearness allowances. 

On perusing the counter filed by the trust, the court noted that despite the Rules, the woman was receiving regular pension along with Dearness Allowance from 2001 to date. The court agreed with the respondent authorities and noted that the petition was filed without considering the commutation of the pension amount.

Thus, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Vijay Priyan for Mr. R. Krishnaswamy

Counsel for Respondents: M/s. C. Gauthamaraj Mr. C.S.K. Sathish

Case Title: P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115

Case No: WP No. 36589 of 2015