Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tmt. P. Vanajakshi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the second respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporations Employees Pension Fund Trust, and to direct the respondents to sanction and pay Dearness Allowance on her basic pension from 01.06.2001, along with arrears and interest. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on 20.04.1974 after the death of her husband on 19.07.1972, and was initially sanctioned family pension. She later superannuated from the post of Selection Grade Assistant on 31.05.2001. The petitioner contended that although she was sanctioned two pensions—family pension and regular pension—no Dearness Allowance was paid on her regular pension since her retirement. The respondents, represented by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation and the Pension Fund Trust, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had opted for commutation of pension, resulting in a deduction of Rs.862/- from her monthly pension, and that the remaining amount of Rs.2,995/- was paid along with Dearness Allowance. They submitted that the petitioner had approached the court with a misconception of facts. The court, after hearing the parties, examined the records and found that the petitioner had failed to establish that Dearness Allowance was not paid. The court noted that the burden of proof lay on the petitioner to show non-payment, which she did not discharge. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Headnote
A) Pension Law - Dearness Allowance on Regular Pension - Burden of Proof - The petitioner, a retired employee who also received family pension, claimed that no Dearness Allowance was paid on her regular pension. The respondents contended that Dearness Allowance was included in the pension payment. The court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish non-payment of Dearness Allowance, as the records produced by the respondents indicated that Dearness Allowance was paid along with the pension. (Paras 1-6) B) Pension Law - Family Pension and Regular Pension - Commutation - The petitioner was sanctioned both family pension and regular pension. She opted for commutation of pension, resulting in a deduction of Rs.862/- from her monthly pension, and the remaining amount of Rs.2,995/- was paid along with Dearness Allowance. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that Dearness Allowance was not paid. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to Dearness Allowance on her regular pension from the date of superannuation, and whether the respondents have failed to pay the same.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim as she failed to establish non-payment of Dearness Allowance.
Law Points
- Dearness Allowance on pension
- Family Pension
- Regular Pension
- Burden of proof
- Pension Rules
- TNSTC Pension Rules
