Dismissed

The Managing Director v. the Secretary

Madras HC22 Jun 2017WA(MD)/702/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the TN State Transport Corporation challenging an order directing the recognition of 26 years of service for pension calculation against the earlier order recognizing 18 years post-dismissal and reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

The Managing Director Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.A.[MD].No.702 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD).No.5457 of 2017

¶7

The Managing Director,

¶8

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, [Madurai] Limited, Bye-pass Road, Madurai 625 010.

¶9

: Appellant / Respondent 2 Vs.

¶10

The Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶11

2.S.K.Chelliah : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.04.2012 made in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2011, on the file of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD). 1298/ 2011 :

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take the period of service of the petitioner as 26 years instead of 18 years as taken by the respondent in calculating the pension on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.No.275/1990 and order passed in Madras High Court Judicature W.P.No.11972/1993.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian Standing Counsel For Respondent No.2 : Mr.C.Arulmozhi Raja Shankar

in SR Stage

JUDGMENT

[ Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶20

Heard Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, learned Standing Counsel appearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the appellant and Mr.C.Arulmozhi Raja Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶21

¶22

The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.04.2012 made in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2011.

¶23

The said Writ Petition was filed by the second respondent herein, directing the appellant to reckon the period of his service with the appellant as 26 years, instead of 18 years, for calculating pension, on the basis of the Award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.275 of 1990 and the direction issued by the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.11972 of 1993.

¶24

The second respondent was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal was challenged by him by raising an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court by filing I.D.No.275 of 1990. The Labour Court by Award dated 01.12.1992, set aside the order of dismissal, directed reinstatement of the second respondent in service with continuity of service, without back wages. The appellant herein challenged the said Award by filing W.P.No.11972 of 1993 and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the second respondent herein was reinstated in service as Driver on 17.11.1995. Ultimately, the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, on 06.06.2000. The said order has become final. As a consequence of the said order, the second respondent is deemed to have been an employee of the appellant and is entitled for the entire length of service to be counted for all purposes except back wages. Therefore, the Writ Court held that he is entitled for grant of pension under the Contributory Pension Scheme and the reason for keeping him out of employment was not attributable to the employee, but, on account of the disciplinary proceedings initiated, which was set aside by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.11972 of 1993, dated 06.06.2000. Thus, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶27

/True copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Secretary, Transport Department,

¶31

Government of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.C.ARUN MOZHI RAJASHANKAR, Advocate, SR No. 61449/17. +1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR No. 61880. NB

¶33

PSM/MR-KKR/SAR2/06.07.2017/2P/4C

¶34

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

¶35

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.[MD].No.702 of 2017 22.06.2017

The Managing Director v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt. Vasantha Vs the Principle Secretary to

T.Sermadas Vs the Superintendent of Police

Janibarani Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Kanniah Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Rajakumari, Vs the Superintendent of Police

The Managing Director, Vs a.K.Mohammed Samsudeen