Allowed

S.Gunasekaran, v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Madras HC12 Nov 2013WP(MD)/1394/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking sanction of outstanding retirement benefits with interest. The Court held that financial constraints cannot delay payment and directed the respondent to settle due benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed with a direction to settle balance retirement benefits within three months with interest at 6% per annum.

S.Gunasekaran, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

12/11/2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1394 of 2013

¶7

S.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-1.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to sanction the remaining retirement benefits such as gratuity, pension commutation and leave salary with interest to the petitioner for which he is entitled upon his retirement dated 31.10.2011.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deendayalan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner was formerly working as a Ticker Examiner in the respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Region. He retired from service on 31.10.2011. His grievance is that his retirement benefits have not been settled so far. Therefore, he has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to settle the balance of the retirement benefits with interest.

¶16

Taking notice for the respondents, Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the respondent corporation is in financial constraints. Therefore, the retirement benefits of the employee could not be settled on time. As a matter of fact, according to the respondents, a seniority list of the retired employees is maintained and based on the same, in phased manner, settlements are made in favour of the retired employees for their due retirement benefits.

¶17

I have considered the above submissions.

¶18

The retirement benefits are the properties of the retired employee. The respondent has got no authority to retain the same. It may be true that the respondent has got some financial constraints. But that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be a ground for delaying the payment of the retirement benefits. The respondent is bound by the law to settle the retirement benefits without any delay.

¶19

¶20

Already more than two years have gone from the date of retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there may be a direction issued to the respondents to settle the retirement benefits with interest at the rate of 10%.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and having regard to the fact that in similar situation in W.P.(MD) No.11868 of 2013 etc., batch, by an order dated 19.09.2013, this Court has ordered for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum, I am inclined to direct the respondents to pay 6% interest from the date of retirement.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to settle the balance retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director,New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-1.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate, in SR. No.55931.

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.1394 of 2013 12.11.2013

¶31

¶32

msm 03.12.2013 p2-3c

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Gunasekaran, v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gunasekaran, v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kalimuthan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Dindigul District Sand Tipper- Vs the District Collector

N.Murugesan Vs the Managing Director

M.B. Basheer Mohamad, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M. Raghu Krishnan, Vs the District Collector

M/S. Ashirbad Udyog, Vs the Commissioner of Customs