Partly allowed

V.Kirupasankar, v. The Principal Secretary to

Madras HC2 Aug 2017WP/19750/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent State Transport Corporation to pay the petitioner's unearned leave encashment as terminal benefits in twelve equal monthly instalments, citing the right to livelihood under Article 21 and following a common judgment by this Court.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to disburse the retiral benefits to the petitioner in twelve equal monthly instalments, with the first instalment commencing from 01.09.2017.

V.Kirupasankar, Vs The Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :02.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. No.19750 of 2017

¶5

V.Kirupasankar .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Transport
Secretariat, Fort St.Geoge,
Chennai 600 009.

¶7

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636 007, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner encashment of unearned leave on Private Affairs of Rs.92,962/- with 24% interest for the delayed payment from 30.06.2015 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.M.Perumal Government Advocate

¶11

for R1

¶12

Mr.P.Paramasivadoss Government Advocate for R2

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The writ petitioner served as Assistant Manger at Tamil Nadu State Transport Depot in Salem and after completion of 35 years 2 months and 23 days of service, voluntarily retired from service on 30.06.2015, and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that till today, the terminal benefits are not disbursed to the writ petitioner without any valid reasons and that the writ petitioner was allowed to voluntarily retire from service and his entitlement for terminal benefits are not paid till today.

¶16

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

¶17

The terminal benefits are the 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. Life does not mean a mere animal life and it includes decent life as ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

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, 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 these retired employees to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is deprecated.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

that the first instalment shall commence from 01.09.2017. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶23

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sk
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Transport
Secretariat, Fort St.Geoge,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.
12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem 636 007,
Salem District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.55707
W.P. No. 19750 of 2017

¶24

SKS(CO) CU(30/08/2017)

¶25

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

V.Kirupasankar, v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kirupasankar, v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Yasothai, W/o.Rajendran, Vs The Government of

V. Ramasamy Vs Tmt. Shabitha IAS

J.Senthil Vs The Chairman

K.Arulanandam, Vs The Principal Secretary to

Mrs.T.Thilagavathi, Vs The Secretary to the

D.Rakesh Reddy Vs The Director General