Petitioner sued for reinstatement and benefits in W.Ps. 2003 but withdrew arguments as bank certified dues were settled post-death. Court dismissed petitions as no further adjudication was needed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.Nos.11029 & 11030 of 2003
2
Prayer in W.P.No.11029/03: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the fifth respondent bearing No.DIS.COn.614, dated 24.10.2001 and the order of the eighth respondent dated 23.09.2002 under cover of his order bearing A & R/33, dated 30.09.2002 and quash them directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service benefits including backwages, refixation of pay, continuity of service, seniority and treating the period of suspension as on duty
3
Prayer in W.P.No.11030/03: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the fourth respondent dated 17.07.2001 and the order of the eighth respondent dated 23.09.2002 and quash the same in so far as it relates to denial of backwages, treating the period spent out of service by the petitioner seniority, as not countable for the seniority/increment/promotion and treating the period of suspension on suspension only and direct the fourth respondent to grant the petitioner's backwages count the period spent by him out of service for seniority/increment/promotions and treat the period of suspension as on duty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kalyanaraman
in both W.Ps. for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia
For Respondent-5 : Mr.S.Kanniah
in both W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
Mr.Kalyananraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner died on 18.03.2008. However, instructions had been received from the petitioner's wife that the respondent bank has already settled the dues payable to the petitioner which had been received by the petitioner's wife one Mrs. Vidya Venkatesan. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the letter
4
issued by the bank dated 09.03.2009 which reads as hereunder:
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Mrs.Vidhay Venkatesan, w/o. (late) Mr.S.Veniatesan,l (PF
No.1471155) Asst.Manager at our Branch, has been paid the following amounts as benefits
due to be paid to late Mr.S.Venkatesan:
Sr.No. Particulars Amount Date
1. Provident Fund Settlement 3,35,214/- 27.08.2008
2. Leave encashment 1,07,865/- 27.08.2008
3. Gratuity 3,50,000/- 22.07.2008
Out of the above amounts, various loans availed by (Late) Mr.S.Venkatesan has
been closed on different dates as under:
| Sr.No. | Loan | Amount | Date of Closure |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Staff Computer Loan | 37,631/- | 22.07.2008 |
| 2. | Personal Loan | 2,93,374/- | 22.07.2008 |
| 3. | OD account | 96,625/- | 27.08.2008 |
| 4. | Vehicle loan | 18,400/- | 28.07.2008 |
| 5. | Festival advance | 4,000/- | 26.08.2008 |
| 6. | Flood loan | 18,109/- | 26.08.2008 |
For STATE BANK OF INDIA
Date:09.03.2009 Manager (Accts & Admn.)”
5
for the petitioner, these writ petitions are dismissed as it requires no further adjudication in this court. No costs.
Index: Yes/No 11.12.2017
Internet: Yes/No
smi
To
6
7
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
smi
W.P.Nos.11029 & 11030 of 2003
11.12.2017
S.Venkatesan (deceased)
State Bank of India
R.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
