Allowed

P.Rajendran, v. the General Manager

Madras HC10 Jan 2017WP(MD)/19516/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single judge order whereby the Court, relying on a previous decision, directed the respondent Transport Corporation to settle the petitioner's terminal benefits, including pension arrears, in twelve equal monthly installments carrying interest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to settle terminal benefits in twelve equal monthly installments with interest, first installment due by March 2017.

P.Rajendran, Vs the General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.01.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.19516 of 2014

¶3

P.Rajendran

¶4

-vs-

¶5

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Ltd., Karaikudi Division, Maruthupathi, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. .. Respondent

¶6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to sanction all service benefits to the petitioner by taking note of the petitioner's initial appointment from 02.09.1974 with continuity of service from the year 1996 and subsequently calculate the pension and sanction arrears of pension and other service and retirement benefits in view of the Award in I.D.No.85 of 2004 dated 15.04.2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2010 and subsequent representation dated 11.07.2012 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : No Appearance

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

The prayer in the writ petition is for a Mandamus directing the respondent to sanction all service benefits to the petitioner by taking note of the petitioner's initial appointment from 02.09.1974 with continuity of service from the year 1996 and subsequently calculate the pension and sanction arrears of pension and other service and retirement benefits in view of the Award in I.D.No.85 of 2004 dated 15.04.2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2010 and subsequent representation dated 11.07.2012 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the prayer sought for in the writ petition can be considered by this Court as the issue has already been raised and decided by this Court in a batch of writ petitions and according to him, this writ petition is covered by the said decisions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD).No.20945 of 2016 dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 01.11.2016 in the matter of J.Vincent Raj vs. the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited.

¶11

¶12

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the said decision of this Court and in number of cases orders were issued, directing the respondents to settle the terminal benefits of the employees.

¶13

This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 01.11.2016 made in W.P.(MD).No.20945 of 2016, wherein this Court has passed the following order:

¶14

“4. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶15

i) A direction is issued to the transport corporation to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner that are yet to be settled, in twelve equal monthly installments;

¶16

ii) The first installment shall commence by making payment on or before the First week of January, 2017 and the amount in each of the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before 10^th of every succeeding month;

¶17

iii) The said terminal amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, as per the Division Bench judgment referred to above. In case of delay in making installments, the interest payable could be 18% for the delayed period;

¶18

(iv) The aforesaid direction to settle the terminal benefits would not preclude the workman to question the computation of any of the terminal benefits, if the same is paid lesser than the amount to which, he is entitled to receive. Likewise, if the petitioner has any grievance that he is entitled. No costs.”

¶19

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the first installment as per clause (ii) of the aforesaid order shall commence in this case, only in the month of March 2017.

¶20

In view of the said submissions as well as the order cited supra, the same order is passed in this case also with the following directions:

¶21

i) A direction is issued to the Transport Corporation to settle the terminal benefits of the petitioner that are yet to be settled, in twelve equal monthly installments;

¶22

ii) The first installment shall commence by making payment on or before the First week of March, 2017 and the amount in each of the remaining installments shall be paid on or before 10^th of every succeeding month;

¶23

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) The aforesaid direction to settle the terminal benefits would not preclude the workman to question the computation of any of

¶25

¶26

the terminal benefits, if the same is paid lesser than the amount to which, he is entitled to receive. Likewise, if the petitioner has any grievance that he is entitled.

¶27

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Ltd., Karaikudi Division, Maruthupathi, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶34

+1CC TO A.HAJA MOHIDEEN,ADVOCATE, SR NO.1770

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.19516 of 2014 10.01.2017

¶36

¶37

MS/PM.PN/14.2.2017/3P.3C

¶38

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

P.Rajendran, v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajendran, v. the General Manager

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. Sivakami Pillai Vs the Secretary to Govt.

G. Parthasarathy, Vs the General Manager

K. Naganathan, Vs the Director General of Police

K. Karuppasamy, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer I

R.Kaliappan, Vs the Assistant Electrical

B.Suresh, Vs the Principal Secretary to