Allowed

P.Krishnadoss, v. the General Manager

Madras HC12 Jan 2017WP(MD)/586/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the transport corporation to pay the unpublished petitioner's unsettled terminal benefits in 12 equal monthly installments, carrying 6% interest, with 18% interest applicable for delayed installments.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to pay terminal benefits in 12 equal monthly instalments starting 10.02.2017 with 6% interest, and 18% interest for delayed instalments.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.01.2017 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P(MD)No.586 of 2017

¶4

P.Krishnadoss ... Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

The General Manager

¶7

State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Pallavan Salai

¶8

Chennai ... Respondent

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the petitioner Rs.1,74,206/- towards leave salary and also other benefits together with 18% interest per annum within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Murugan For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner was employed as Selection Grade Senior Technician in the respondents Corporation and he retired from service on 31.05.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶13

2.He has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits.

¶14

3.The First Bench of this Court in similar matter has passed an order dated 12.06.2015 in W.A.(MD) Nos.383 to 457 of 2015, issuing direction to the transport Corporations to settle the terminal benefits of its employees in equal monthly instalments and to pay 6% interest on the terminal benefits payable to the workman. The Bench has also held that workman is entitled to 18% interest for the defaulted period of instalment.

¶15

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

¶16

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 instalments;

¶17

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

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iii) The said terminal amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, as per the Division Bench judgment referred to above. In case

¶19

¶20

of delay in making instalments, the interest payable could be 18% for the delayed period;

¶21

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 to interest for the amount already settled, he can agitate the same as per law, if he is entitled. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

The General Manager State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., Pallavan Salai Chennai

¶28

+1 cc to Mr. K.SATHIYA SINGH, Advocate, Sr.No:2858 +1 cc to Mr. R.MURUGAN , Advocate, Sr.No:2445

¶29

¶30

MAS/PM-JN:30.01.2017:2P/4C

¶31

W.P(MD)No.586 of 2017 12.01.2017

¶32

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

P.Krishnadoss, v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Krishnadoss, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valliappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Rm. Murugappan, Vs the Commissioner

K.Bakeerathan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Rajarathinam, Vs the Tamil Nadu State Trasnport

Kanagasabai Vs Ganesan

K.Muruganandam, Vs