Allowed

P.Senthamilselvan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC3 Apr 2019WP/4606/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enforced retirement benefits by following a previous judgment, directing the respondents to disburse gratuity, pension commutation, and other amounts to the petitioner in twelve equal monthly installments as financial constraints are not a valid excuse.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to disburse retiral benefits in twelve equal monthly instalments starting 01.05.2019.

P.Senthamilselvan Vs The Principal Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03-04-2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.4606 of 2019

¶6

P.Senthamilselvan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600009. 2. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Provident Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar - House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent and third respondents to disburse the retirement benefits, viz., Gratuity Amount of Rs.11,51,160/-, Earned Leave Surrender Salary Amount of Rs.4,65,580/-, Pension Commutation Amount of Rs.8,67,240/-, Social Security Scheme Amount of Rs.20,000/- and the total comes to Rs.25,03,980/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs and Three Thousand and Nine Hundred and Eighty only) with 18% interest on delayed payment to the petitioner, the Senior Tradesman, Staff No.T08543 who has retired from service on 30.6.2018.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate. For Respondents-2&3 : Mrs.Rajeni Ramadoss

¶9

Government Advocate.

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The writ petitioner served as Helper in Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited and after completion of 36 years of service, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2018, and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that till today, the terminal benefits are not disbursed to the writ petitioner without any valid reasons and that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service and his entitlement for terminal benefits are not paid till today.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents / Corporation pleads that due to financial crunch they are unable to pay the terminal benefits due to his employees.

¶14

The terminal benefits are right of an employee lead his livelihood. An employee who was serving in the Corporation for more than three decades, is entitled for his livelihood. It does not mean a mere life and it includes decent life as ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

The terminal benefits are not bounty and it is a deferred portion of wages for the services rendered by an employee. Hence, non payment of terminal benefits to the employees without any valid reason, is no doubt, a violation of right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State being a modal employer, has to settle the benefits to its employees and immediately after their retirement and it is the duty mandated on the part of the State to settle the terminal benefits. Therefore, this Court is of the view that batch of writ petitions are filed before this Court seeking direction to pay terminal benefits and the attitude of the respondents driving the retired employees to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is deprecated.

¶16

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to follow earlier directions granted by this Court and by following the terms stated therein. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of and the respondents are directed to disburse the aforementioned retiral benefits to the petitioner herein, in twelve equal monthly instalments, in the light of the common

¶17

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

¶18

judgment passed by this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.383 to 457 of 2015 (K.Rajendran and others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai and others) dated 12.06.2015. It is also made clear that the first instalment shall commence from 01.05.2019. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶20

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Svn
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600009.
2. The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
+1cc to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate Sr.32100
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.33463
W.P.No.4606 of 2019

¶21

ev[co] srg 26/4/2019

¶22

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

P.Senthamilselvan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Senthamilselvan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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

A.Sakthivel Vs The District Forest Officer

P.Latha Vs the Director General of Police

N.Ramamurthy Vs Atulya Misra IAS

R.Dhayalan,S/o.T.Raja Vs The Regional Manager

D.Packiasamu, Vs The Principal Secretary to

J.Venkataraman Vs The Principal Secretary to Government