Partly allowed

M.Venkatesan, v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC10 May 2017WP/12358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to disburse pending terminal retirement benefits totaling Rs. 9,80,000 to the petitioner, a retired transport employee, in twelve equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.06.2017 under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Directions to disburse terminal benefits of Rs. 9,80,000 in twelve equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.06.2017.

M.Venkatesan, Vs The Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.05.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.12358 of 2017

M.Venkatesan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.

¶10

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶11

The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar - House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to disburse the retirement benefits, viz., Earned Leave Surrender Salary Amount of Rs.6,14,000/-, Pension Commutation Amount of Rs.3,26,000/-, Settlement Arrears Amount of Rs.12,400/-, IRT Contribution Amount of Rs.4,600/- and Difference in Gratuity payment of Rs.23,000/- and the total comes to Rs.9,80,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) with 18% interest on delayed payment to the petitioner the Senior Tradesman Staff No.T08170, who has retired from service on 29.02.2016.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Zakkir Hussain (for R1)

¶14

Government Advocate

¶15

Mr.P.Kannan Kumar (for R2&R3)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The writ petitioner served as a Senior Tradesman in Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and after completion of 34 years of service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2016, and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that till today, the terminal benefits

¶18

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

¶19

are not disbursed to the writ petitioner without any valid reasons and that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service and his entitlement for terminal benefits are not paid till today.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / Corporation pleads that due to financial crunch they are unable to pay the terminal benefits due to the employees.

¶21

The terminal benefits are right of an employee to lead his livelihood. An employee who was serving in the Corporation for more than three decades, is entitled for his livelihood. It does not mean a mere life and it includes decent life as ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The terminal benefits are not bounty and it is a deferred portion of wages for the services rendered by an employee. Hence, non payment of terminal benefits to the employees without any valid reason, is no doubt, a violation of right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State being a modal employer, has to settle the benefits to its employees and immediately after their retirement and it is the duty mandated on the part of the State to settle the terminal benefits. Therefore, this Court is of the view that batch of writ petitions are filed before this Court seeking direction to pay terminal benefits and the attitude of the respondents driving the retired employees to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is deprecated.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to follow earlier directions granted by this Court and by following the terms stated therein. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of and the respondents are directed to disburse the aforementioned retiral benefits to the petitioner 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 and 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 01.06.2017. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009.

¶30

The Managing Director,

¶31

Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶32

The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar - House,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
+1 CC to Mr.P. Kannan Kumar, Advocate sr 37236
+1 CC to Mr.D. Veera Sekaran, Advocate sr 37108
+1 cC to Govt. Pleader sr 37346
W.P.No.12358 of 2017
VSN(CO)
sp/23/5

¶33

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

M.Venkatesan, v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkatesan, v. The Principal Secretary

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

E.Selvakumari Vs The District Collector

G.Iyanar Vs The District Collector

P.M.Krishnakumar Vs the Registrar

K.Nageswaran Rao Vs The Chairman

R.Sathees Kumar, Vs The Labour Inspector

R.Saravanan, Vs The Secretary to