Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.8086 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was employed as Noon-Meal Organiser from 1983. The husband of the petitioner was employed as Craft Teacher and retired in the year 1981. He was in receipt of pension and died on 26.06.1996. The petitioner was granted family pension. However an impugned order was passed in August 1997 by the second respondent stating that since the petitioner was receipt of family pension, she is not entitled to Dearness Allowance for her employment. The said order is based on G.O.191 of the first respondent dated 16.03.1996. 3. Heard Mr.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench Court, dated 19.02.2002 in W.P.No.6759 of 1999. 5. I have perused the judgment. The judgment squarely covers the issue involved in this case. The said judgment is extracted here-under:-. "The State government is the petitioner herein, and the challenge is to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.06.1997 in O.A.No.5393 of 1996 in having set aside the order of the second petitioner dated 29.07.1996 in seeking to recover the dearness allowance paid along with family pension of the first respondent for the period from 16.03.1996 to 31.07.1996. 2. The sum and substance of the stand of the petitioner in this writ petition is that when the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 32 (Union of India Vs. G.Vasudevan Pillay) made it clear that the double payment of dearness allowance either in respect of a pensioner or in respect of recipient of a family pension cannot be allowed, the order of the second petitioner dated 29.07.1999 which is in consonance with the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court ought not to have been interfered with the Tribunal. 3. It is true that in the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. G.Vasudevan Pillay ((1995) 2 SCC 3) (Supa), the cases of the petitioner as well as that of the family pensioner was dealt with. Nevertheless, in the subsequent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in H.S.E.B and others Vs. 3. It is true that in the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. G.Vasudevan Pillay ((1995) 2 SCC 3) (Supa), the cases of the petitioner as well as that of the family pensioner was dealt with. Nevertheless, in the subsequent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in H.S.E.B and others Vs. Azad Kaur (2000) 2 SCC 227 ), a distinction has been made with reference to those family pensioners who were in employment even prior to the death of the employee concerned pursuant to whose demise, the family pension became payable. In fact, after referring to the earlier Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in (1995) 2 SCC 32 (supra) in the judgment reported in 2000(2) SCC 227 the position has been made very clear in paragraph 6 of the following effect: "As the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs.G.Vasudevan Pillay (1995) 2 SCC 32 ) shows, the principle on which ad hoc reliefs is withheld, is that if a recipient of a family pension has received an additional benefit in the form of either reemployment or an employment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the employee, the need to provide another cushion in the form of ad hoc relief is not there. The word "employed" used in the letter of 20.03.1980 in that context can only refer to the kind of employment which is secured by the window or a family member on account of or in the context of the death of the employee in respect of whom family pension is being paid. It can have no reference to any independent employment or any other independent source of livelihood which the family members may possess. The mere fact that the window is independently employed as a teacher elsewhere even prior to the death of her husband, cannot deprive the family of the benefit of the ad hoc relief on family pension." 4. It can have no reference to any independent employment or any other independent source of livelihood which the family members may possess. The mere fact that the window is independently employed as a teacher elsewhere even prior to the death of her husband, cannot deprive the family of the benefit of the ad hoc relief on family pension." 4. Having regard to the said categorical pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court, in respect of such of those family pensioners who were independently employed given prior to the death of the Government servant, they cannot be deprived of the benefit of the ad hoc relief on family pension, it will have to be held that the present attempt of the second petitioner in restoring to the recovery of dearness allowance from the family pension paid to the first respondent by the proceeding dated 29.07.1996 cannot be sustained. 5. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the order of the Tribunal impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed." 6. It is very clear that the impugned Government Order and the consequential orders are opposed to the said decision. Accordingly, the impugned Government Order and consequential order are quashed. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.