Dismissed

M. Gnanaprakasam, v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Madras HC25 Jul 2019WP(MD)/15485/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking subsistence allowance. The court held that the petitioner had executed a compromise memo and received terminal benefits, rendering further claims impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive no further relief as he had surrendered rights via compromise memo and received benefits.

M. Gnanaprakasam, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.07.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15485 of 2013

M.Gnanaprakasam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam,.

¶11

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Pudukottai Region, Pudukottai.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Pudukottai Moffusil Branch, Pudukottai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide subsistence allowance to the petitioner with effect from 14.05.2013 to till the date of providing duty to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul, For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to provide subsistence allowance to the petitioner with effect from 14.05.2013 to till the date of providing duty to the petitioner.

¶17

2.In respect of the issues in relation to the writ petition filed in W.P.(MD)No.15485 of 2013, the writ petitioner himself has executed a compromise memo stating that he will not claim any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further amount with reference to the writ petition filed in this regard. Accordingly, the Management also settled all the terminal and pensionary benefits with interest. The writ petitioner has

¶18

¶19

already been received the terminal and pensionary benefits with interest as applicable. This being the factum, the writ petitioner cannot pursue any further remedy in view of the undertaking given to the management on 12.12.2013.

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- )

¶21

+1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-78042[F] dated 26/07/2019 )

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.15485 of 2013 25.07.2019

¶23

am ES/31.07.2019/2P/2C

¶24

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

M. Gnanaprakasam, v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Gnanaprakasam, v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

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.Sivakumar Vs the District Chief

N.P.Rajendran Vs the Inspector General of

C. Mohana Selvi, Vs the Director of Elementary

R.Kasimuthuveerapandian, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M. Baskaran, Vs the Secretary

K. Soundaramoorthi, Vs the Principal Secretary to the