Allowed

V. Muthuchamy v. the Managing Director

Madras HC20 Jan 2017WP(MD)/999/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the transport corporation to settle the petitioner's remaining terminal benefits in twelve equal monthly instalments, carrying 6% interest, with 18% interest for delayed payments. The petitioner was given the right to question any shortfall in the computed amount.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay terminal benefits in twelve equal monthly instalments with 6% interest and 18% for delays.

V. Muthuchamy Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P(MD)No.999 of 2017

V.Muthuchamy

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶9

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.

¶10

2.The General Manager,

¶11

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 1 .... Respondents

¶12

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 entire pensionary and terminal benefits along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 26.03.2014 to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner was employed as Special Grade Driver in the respondent Corporation and he retired from service on 26.03.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

18% for the delayed period;

¶24

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.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶29

1.The Managing Director,

¶30

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.

¶31

2.The General Manager,

¶32

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode – 1.

¶33

+1 cc to Mr. K.SATHIYA SINGH, Advocate, Sr.No:3432

¶34

+1 cc to Mr. C.PRAKSAM, Advocate, Sr.No:3474

¶35

nbi

¶36

MAS/SV-MMS:02.02.2017:2P/5C

¶37

W.P(MD)No.999 of 2017

¶38

20.01.2017

¶39

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

V. Muthuchamy v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Muthuchamy v. the Managing Director

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

M/S.Sri Balaji Traders Vs the Commercial Tax OFFICER-1

M/S.Sj Computers, Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

S.Gopal, Special Grade Driver Vs the Tamil Nadu State

C.Krishnan Vs the Managing Director

D.Saravanan Vs the Superintending Engineer

M.Packiyam, Vs the Managing Director