Allowed

D.Arumuga Perumal v. The Principal Secretary to

Madras HC3 Aug 2017WP/19890/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that terminal benefits are deferred wages and a right to livelihood under Article 21. Deprecating the need for retirees to approach court, it directed respondents to pay unearned leave encashment in 12 monthly installments commencing October 1, 2017, following a common judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to disburse the unearned leave encashment of Rs.87,267/- in twelve equal monthly installments, with the first installment commencing from 01.10.2017.

D.Arumuga Perumal Vs The Principal Secretary to — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :03.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. No.19890 of 2017

D.Arumuga Perumal

...Petitioner

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

¶10

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road Salem 636 007, Salem District. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Mandamus, to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner the encashment of unearned leave on Private Affairs of Rs.87,267/- with 24% interest for the delayed payment from 31.12.2000 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For Respondents : Mr.C.C.Ranga Rajan for R1 Government Advocate : Mr.R.K.Gandhi for R2

¶13

The writ petitioner, serving as Senior Manager in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, after completion of 26 years and 6 months of service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000, and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that till today, the terminal benefits viz., unearned leave on Private Affairs for 90 days to a tune of Rs.87,267/- with 24% interest for the delayed payment from 31.12.2000, is not disbursed to the writ petitioner without any valid reasons and that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service without paying his terminal benefits.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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. It does not mean a mere life and it includes decent life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The terminal benefits are not a 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 model employer, has to settle the benefits to its employees 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 the practice of driving the retired employees to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for payment of their terminals benefits is to be deprecated.

¶18

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 installments, 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 installment shall commence from 01.10.2017. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

dna

¶22

To.

¶23

The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Transport Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009. 2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road Salem 636 007, Salem District. +1cc to Mr.R.K.Gandhi, Advocate Sr. 56167 +1cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 56314 W.P. No.19890 of 2017

¶24

SK(CO) VR(05/09/2017)

¶25

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

D.Arumuga Perumal v. The Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Arumuga Perumal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Thandavan, Vs The Managing Director

R.Rojibai Vs The State of Tamilnadu

V.Kirupasankar, Vs The Principal Secretary to

Karunakar K Menon Vs Government of India

M.Vinoth Kumar (31 yrs), Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Chithra, Vs The Deputy Inspector