Allowed

M.Gnanam, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC30 Nov 2016WP/42084/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of two writ petitions seeking mandamus. In line with a common Division Bench judgment, the court directed the respondent corporation to pay the petitioners' unsettled retirement benefits and interest in twelve equal monthly instalments, commencing from February 1, 2017.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directed the second respondent to disburse retirement benefits paid in twelve equal monthly instalments starting 01.02.2017.

M.Gnanam, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.11.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.42084 and 42085 of 2016

¶6

M.Gnanam ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42084/16 2. S.A.Nazeer ... Petitioner in W.P.No.42085/16 vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation (TN) Ltd., Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents in both W.Ps.

¶7

Writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent to settle all eligible retirement benefits of the petitioners as sought for in their representations dated 22.11.2016 including interest thereto on such belated payment within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶8

By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issue involved in all these petitions are related to each other, they are disposed of by a common order.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The writ petitions have been filed seeking Mandamus directing the second respondent to settle the retirement benefits, due to the petitioners, along with interest.

¶11

3.The petitioners are the retired employees of the respondent Corporation and they were not paid the retirement benefits due to them, fully. Hence, the petitioners made representation to the respondents requesting to pay all the retirement benefits. But, the same have not been considered so far. Hence, left with no other

¶12

alternative, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions for the relief set out earlier.

¶13

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for R2.

¶14

5.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).

¶15

6.Following the said judgment, without going into the merits of the matter, the second 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 01.02.2017.

¶16

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

¶17

Assistant Registrar

¶18

// True Copy //

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

The Principal Secretary,

¶23

Transport Department,

¶24

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶25

The Managing Director,

¶26

State Express Transport Corporation

¶27

(TN) Ltd., Chennai – 600 002.

¶28

- 2 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate Sr.No.70650 +1 cc The Government Pleader Sr.No.71041

¶29

Writ Petition Nos.42084
and 42085 of 2016
CO/KGK
RRI 04/01/2017

¶30

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

M.Gnanam, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gnanam, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

The Secretary Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Mr.Balaji, Vs The District Collector

Tmt D Indirani Vs Tr Sekar Babu

K.G.Venkatesan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Subramanian, Vs The Principal Secretary to

MurakalaPrakasam, Vs The Director of Elementary