Allowed

G.Krishnamoorthy, v. The Managing Director

Madras HC22 Sept 2016WP/33311/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of three writ petitions filed by retired transport corporation employees seeking terminal benefits. The court directed the respondent to disburse retirement benefits in twelve equal monthly installments, commencing from December 1, 2016, following a previous Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to disburse retirement benefits to the petitioners in twelve equal monthly installments, commencing from 1.12.2016.

G.Krishnamoorthy, Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.09.2016

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition Nos.33311 to 33313 of 2016

D.Krishnamoorthy

... Petitioner in

W.P.No.33311/2016

R.Natarajan

... Petitioner in

W.P.No.33312/2016

M.Raju ... Petitioner in W.P.No.33313/2016

¶11

vs.

¶12

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Region, Villupuram, Villupuram District. ... Respondents in all the writ petitions

¶13

Writ petition Nos.33311 to 33313 of 2016 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the petitioner's terminal benefits including Gratuity, Earned Leave Surrender, Social Security Scheme amount, Commutation amount and all other eligible retirement benefits together with 9% interest to the petition within stipulated time as fix by this Court.

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, in all the writ petitions.

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

By consent, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.

¶17

The petitioners joined the services of the Transport Corporation and they retired from service long before. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they retired from service long before, till date, they were not paid with

¶18

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

¶19

the retirement benefits. In this regard, the petitioners submitted representations before the respondents, on various dates. However, till date, there was no response. Aggrieved against the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

The issue involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court dated 12.6.2015 made in W.A.(MD) Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 (K.Rajendran & Others vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai and others).

¶22

Following the said judgment, without going into the merits of the matter, the respondents are directed to disburse the aforementioned retiral benefits to the petitioners herein, in twelve equal monthly instalments, in the light of the common judgment passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 (K.Rajendran & Others vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai and others), dated 12.06.2015. It is also made clear that the first instalment shall commence from 1.12.2016.

¶23

With the above direction, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶24

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

tsi To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Region, Villupuram, Villupuram District. +3 ccs to M/s.C.Prakasam Advocate sr.54268,54269,54270 +2 ccs to Mr.P.Kannan Advocate sr 54631

¶27

W.P.Nos.33311 to 33313 of 2016

¶28

aa19/10/2016

¶29

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

G.Krishnamoorthy, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Krishnamoorthy, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharath Post Graduate College Vs Prof.P.S.Naik

T.Samuel Selvaprabu, Vs The Director of Elementary

A.Dhinakarankoilmani, Vs The Director of Elementary

K.Krishnan, Vs The Managing Director

S.Boopathy, Vs The District Employment

T.Selvaraj Vs M/s.State Express Transport