Allowed

N.Ramakrishnan, Retd. v. The Managing Director

Madras HC7 Oct 2016WP/36009/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of nine writ petitions filed by retired employees of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation seeking delayed retirement benefits. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment, the Court directed the Respondent to disburse the benefits in twelve equal monthly installments starting from January 1, 2017.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to disburse retirement benefits in twelve equal monthly installments commencing from 1.1.2017.

N.Ramakrishnan, Retd. Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.10.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition Nos.36009 to 36018 of 2016

¶6

W.P.No.36009 of 2016:

¶7

N.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Writ petition No.36009 of 2016 has been filed under Article

¶12

226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to settle the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner i.e. Leave Encashment (EL) sum of Rs.64,788/- + Surrender Leave amount sum of Rs.33,901/- = Totally a sum of Rs.98,689/- + arrears of amounts as per 12 (3) settlement with effect from 01.09.2013 to till the date of retirement i.e. 29.02.2012 and other attendant benefits and enhanced dearness allowances along with 18% interest on delayed payment from 01.03.2016 to till the date of

¶13

¶14

disbursement of the terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Y.George Williams in all the writ petitions For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, in all the writ petitions.

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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

¶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 respondent is 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 1.1.2017.

¶23

¶24

With the above direction, all the writ petitions are

¶25

disposed of. No costs.

¶26

07.10.2016 Index:Yes/No sbi To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore-43.

¶27

¶28

R.SUBBIAH, J sbi

¶29

W.P.Nos.36009 to 36018 of 2016

¶30

DATED: 7.10.2016

N.Ramakrishnan, Retd. v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramakrishnan, Retd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Sankar, S/o. K.Damotharan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

A.Anandha Padmanabha Alse, Vs Mr.G.Govindaraj

B.Krishnamoorthy Vs Mr.Venkatesan

Mr.K.Kuberanathan Vs State Rep by

K.Pachiappan, Vs The Secretary to Government of

N.Nagarajan Vs The Secretary to Government