Allowed

U.Neelamegam, S/O.Udaiyar v. the Management of

Madras HC9 Mar 2018WP(MD)/1691/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged non-payment of arrears of wages and terminal benefits due to the petitioner after a retrospective revision of Dearness Allowance. The court accepted the claim and directed the management to quantify and pay the difference in retirement benefits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to quantify and pay the difference in pension and retirement benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, within eight weeks of receiving a copy of this order.

U.Neelamegam, S/O.Udaiyar Vs the Management of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.03.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.1691 of 2018

U.Neelamegam

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Karaikudi Region, Represented by its General Manager, Karaikudi. ...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs.5,080/- as towards arrears of wages, together 18% interest p.a., after correctly arriving at the monthly wages payable to him for the period from the month of January, 2012 to April, 2012 by taking note of the enhanced rate of dearness allowance as ordered/ fixed for the period from 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2012 in the G.O.No.116, Finance (Allowances) Department dated 09.04.2012 and also to revise his terminal benefits, namely gratuity and encashment of 291.5 days earned and sick leaves based on such wages payable to him on the month of his retirement i.e., April, 2012 and accordingly to pay him balance/ arrears of gratuity and encashment of earned and sick leave days as Rs.22,713/- and Rs.12,340/- respectively, together with 18% interest p.a., within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

¶15

2.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶16

3.The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent/Corporation. He retired from service on 30.04.2012. Subsequent to his retirement, the Dearness Allowance came to be revised with retrospective effect from 01.01.2012. The petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is entitled to be paid the difference in amount for the said period of four months. As a result, there will be a beneficial impact on

¶17

¶18

his pension and other benefits also. The difference in retirement benefits shall be quantified by the respondent/Management and paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

4.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

+1CC TO M/S.D.SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.54449

¶24

+1CC TO M/S.S.ARUNACHALAM, ADVOCATE, SR NO.54573

¶25

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.1691 of 2018 09.03.2018

¶26

tsg MS/SKN-RSK/SAR-3/13.03.2018/2P.3C

¶27

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

U.Neelamegam, S/O.Udaiyar v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Neelamegam, S/O.Udaiyar v. the Management of

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

Case details

Similar cases

S.Vellaiammal, Vs the Commissioner

Tamil Mannan, Vs the District Collector

S.Vasanthi Vs the District Educational

K.Selvam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Jayaraman, S/O.S.Mariappa Vs the Principal Secretary to

Suresh S/O. Kamaraj Vs the General Manager