Disposed

N.Udayakumar, v. the General Manager

Madras HC30 Nov 2018WP(MD)/23774/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a writ petition filed by a former driver against transport corporation officials seeking settlement of retirement benefits and pension. The court, noting lack of material evidence to decide entitlement, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, give him an opportunity, and pass appropriate orders on merits within eight weeks.

N.Udayakumar, Vs the General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 30.11.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23774 of 2018

N.Udayakumar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager, The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶11

The Branch Manager, The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits including Employees Provident Fund and Monthly pension payable to him with reasonable rate of interest within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathyasingh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits including Employees Provident Fund and Monthly pension payable to him with reasonable rate of interest within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶16

2.Mr.K.Sathyasingh, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶17

3.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the first respondent Corporation as a driver from 1985 onwards and he was terminated by an order dated 06.06.2005. He states that an Industrial Dispute was raised, which was pending before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and the respondent sought approval https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for his dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act in Approval Application No.19/2005. In the meanwhile, the petitioner

¶18

¶19

received a letter dated 07.07.2005 from the first respondent directing him to pay Rs.2,527/- towards arrears of employee contribution to the Corporation and produce a no due certificate from the Transport Corporation Employees Cooperative Savings and Credit Society. Accordingly, the petitioner also sent a letter on 08.08.2005 requesting to sanction Employees Provident Fund and Monthly pension payable to him. Even though the respondents received the letter of the petitioner dated 08.08.2005, they have not settled the terminal benefits. Hence, the petitioner several representations and the last representation is on 06.08.2018. But they have failed to grant pension benefits and other benefits, which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since no other remedy available to the petitioner, he has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

¶20

4.Since the petitioner has not produced any materials, this Court is not in a position to decide whether the petitioner is entitled for the said benefits or not as per the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2018 after giving him an opportunity and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with Law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶26

¶27

The General Manager,

¶28

The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶29

The Branch Manager,

¶30

The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai.

¶31

1 CC TO Mr.G.M.XAVIER, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 97964

¶32

1 CC TO Mr.K.SATHYA SINGH, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 98213

¶33

RJ2

¶34

TE/BK/SAR-4 : 26/12/2018 : 2P/5C

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.23774 of 2018 30.11.2018

N.Udayakumar, v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Udayakumar, 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

R.Ambikavathi, Vs the Assistant Engineer

G.Murugan, Vs the Sub-Collector Cum the

G.Kannan, Vs the Sub-Collector Cum the

N. Meenatchi, Vs the Directorate of Legal

K.Manikandan, Vs Madurai District Co-Operative

Mohamed Yusuf, Vs the Tahsildar