N. Ramachandran, Vs the Director of Municipal

¶1

1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.15553 to 15561 of 2013 N. RAMACHANDRAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15553 of 2013 S.PALANISAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15554 of 2013 R. CHANDRASEKARAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15555 of 2013 N.MURUGAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15556 of 2013 S. CHANDRASEKARAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15557 of 2013 P.NALLUCHAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15558 of 2013 S. MUTHUSAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15559 of 2013 M.SAMBASIVAM ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15560 of 2013 S. ARJUNAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.15561 of 2013 -VS-

¶7

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15553 of 2013 1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15554 of 2013 1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CHENNAI - 108.

¶9

2

¶10

3 THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, DINDIGUL.

¶11

4 THE COMMISSIONER, KARUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KARUR. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15555 of 2013 1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15556 of 2013 1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108. 3 THE COMMISSIONER,

¶12

DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING

¶13

DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15557 of 2013

¶14

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15558 of 2013 1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

¶15

ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI.

¶16

2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 THE COMMISSIONER, DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15559 of 2013

¶18

3

¶19

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

¶20

ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI.

¶21

2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL

¶22

FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE

¶23

CHENNAI - 108.

¶24

3 THE COMMISSIONER,

¶25

DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,

¶26

DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15560 of 2013

¶27

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

¶28

ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI.

¶29

2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL

¶30

FUND AUDIT, 4TH FLOOR, KURALAGAM, ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108.

¶31

3 THE COMMISSIONER

¶32

DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING

¶33

DINDIGUL. ... RESPONDENTS in WP(MD) No.15561 of 2013

¶34

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15553 of 2013:

¶35

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 31.03.2009 to the date of Full settlement.

¶36

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15554 of 2013:

¶37

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 30.04.2012 to the date of Full settlement.

¶38

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15555 of 2013:

¶39

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 29.02.2012 to the date of Full settlement.

¶40

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15556 of 2013:

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to

¶42

4

¶43

settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 30.04.2010 to the date of Full settlement.

¶44

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15557 of 2013:

¶45

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 31.07.2010 to the date of Full settlement.

¶46

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15558 of 2013:

¶47

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 30.06.2006 to the date of Full settlement.

¶48

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15559 of 2013:

¶49

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 30.06.2006 to the date of Full settlement.

¶50

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15560 of 2013:

¶51

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 30.06.2010 to the date of Full settlement.

¶52

Prayer in WP(MD) No.15561 of 2013:

¶53

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement that is on 30.06.2007 to the date of Full settlement.

¶54

For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.D.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham for R1 & R2 in all WPs Additional Government Pleader Mr.J.Lawrance for R3 Mr.P.Alagusundaram for R4, in W.P.(MD).15555/2013

¶55

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

¶56

5

¶57

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶58

In all these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners, who are the erstwhile employees of the third respondent/Municipality have sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the said third respondent Municipal Commissioner to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioners, calculated at the rate of 12% from the date of the retirement.

¶59

2.In all the writ petitions, counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents, wherein, the third respondent has stated that the Provident Fund dues payable to the respective petitioner has been paid and settled. According to the third respondent, there is no such due payable to the petitioners.

¶60

3.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even though some amount has been paid by way of Provident Fund, interest has not been calculated fully and if the same is calculated, still a substantial amount is due to all the petitioners herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has given the following calculations as to how much is due to the respective petitioner herein and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶61

	DATES AND EVENTS
Date	Events	Balance Amount Provident Fund Amount Till 2013
Appointed 09.06.1975 Retired on 31.03.2009	on N.Ramachandran... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15553 of 2013	1,31,980/-
Appointed 02.03.1982 Retired on 30.04.2012	on S.Palanichamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15554 of 2013	85,178/-
Appointed 23.02.1978 Retired on 29.02.2012	on R.Chandrasekaran Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15555 of 2013	61,900/-
Appointed 26.11.1973 Retired on 04.04.2010	on N.Murugan Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15556 of 2013	86,143/-
Appointed 01.07.1981 Retired on 31.07.2010	on S.Chandrasekaran Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15557 of 2013	1,27,944/-
Appointed 01.07.1983 Retired on 30.06.2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.	on P.Nallusamy Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15558 of 2013 in/hcservices/	52,310/-

¶62

6

¶63

Appointed on S.Muthusamy 1,87,001/22.06.1966 Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15559 of Retired on 2013 30.06.2006 Appointed on M.Sambasivam 70,916/23.03.1982 Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15560 of Retired on 2013 05.02.2010 Appointed on S.Arjunan 96,358/07.06.1971 Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15561 of Retired on 2013 30.06.2007

¶64

4.However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent, vehemently contended that the said calculation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners is disputed and there is no such due to the respective petitioners. According to the third respondent, the entire amount has been settled.

¶65

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also produced a communication dated 06.06.2013, issued by the District Collector of Dindigul to the third respondent Municipality. In the said communication, the following has been given.

¶66

ghh;it 2-y; fhZk; fojj;jpy; jpz;Lf;fy; efuhl;rp Mizah; efuhl;rpapy; gzpg[hpe;j midj;Jg;; gzpahh;fSf;Fk; 1984-85Kjy; 2007-08 tiuapy; nrkeyepjpf;fhd tl;oj; bjhifia fzf;fPL bra;ag;gl;L> jzpf;iff;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk;> cs;shl;rp epjpj; jzpf;ifj;Jiw cjtp ,af;Feh; rhd;wpjH; bgwg;gl;l gpd; cs;shl;rp epjpj; jzpf;ifj;Jiw ,af;Feh; mth;fspd; xg;g[jy; bgw;W efh;;kd;w mDkjp bgw;w gpd;dh; midj;J gzpahsh;fSf;Fk; nrkey epjp bjhiff;fhd tl;oj;bjhif tHq;;f ,aYk; vdj; bjhptpj;Js;shh; vd;w tpguk; kDjhuh;fSf;Fj; bjhptpf;fyhfpwJ.

¶67

6.By acknowledging the said letter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the said communication given by the District Collector, after having obtained information from the third respondent, the actual interest has to be calculated to the Provident Fund amount and based on such calculation, dues have to be paid to the petitioners.

¶68

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that in this regard, each of the petitioner had given individuals representations, dated 25.07.2013, to the third respondent Municipality.

¶69

8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also submitted that if these representations submitted by each petitioner is considered and decided in the light of the calculation given by the petitioners as well as the communication given by the District Collector concerned and an order to that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ effect is passed regarding the payment of dues, if any, payable to the petitioners, the petitioners would be satisfied.

¶70

7

¶71

9.Considering the said submissions made by both sides, the following order is passed in all these writ petitions:

¶72

“Without going into the rival claim made by both sides, as to whether Provident Fund dues is still to be paid to the petitioners or not, the third respondent is directed to consider the respective representations submitted by these petitioners, dated 25.07.2013 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. During the process of deciding the said representations and an order to that effect to be passed by the third respondent, the calculation of Provident Fund payable to each of the petitioner and the interest calculated on the said amount and the total amount and the date of payment, if it is already paid, also to be given. Still any amount is due and payable to the petitioner, such amount can be paid to the respective petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶73

10.With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶74

/True Copy/

¶75

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶76

To

¶77

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

¶78

ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK CHENNAI.

¶79

2 THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL

¶80

FUND AUDIT 4TH FLOOR KURALAGAM ESPLANADE CHENNAI - 108.

¶81

3 THE COMMISSIONER

¶82

DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING DINDIGUL.

¶83

4 THE COMMISSIONER

¶84

KARUR MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING KARUR.

¶85

+9 cc to MR.D.SELVARAJ, Advocate SR.Nos.8668 to 8676/17 +1 cc to M/S.J.LAWRANCE, Advocate SR.No.8334

¶86

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.8367

¶87

W.P.(MD)No.15553 to 15561 of 2013 14.02.2017

¶88

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SMA/BS/09.03.2017:7P/16C

N. Ramachandran, v. the Director of Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Ramachandran, v. the Director of Municipal

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

P. Rajamani, Vs the Chairman and Managing

Fulfill Packs Pvt. Ltd. Htsc Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

T. Joseph Ricxon, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

C.Rengasamy, Vs the District Collector

P. Karmegam Vs the Director

C.Lalitha, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu