Disposed

D.Ayya Kannu v. the Management

Madras HC25 Oct 2019WP(MD)/22691/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, disposed of a writ petition by directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to consider a representation from a retired employee regarding the revision of pay and terminal benefits without adjudicating the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the representation dated 22.08.2019 on merits and pass orders within 12 weeks.

D.Ayya Kannu Vs the Management — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22691 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22691 of 2019

D.Ayya Kannu

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

¶11

2.The General Manager,

¶12

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

¶13

(Kumbakonam) Limited,

¶14

Trichy Region, Trichy.

¶15

3.The Administrator,

¶16

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to revise the petitioner's pay and grade pay in terms of pay revision given under G.O.Ms.No.61, Transport Department, dated 30.04.2015 and in terms of Clause 5 of settlement under Section 12 (3) of the I.D.Act dated 04.01.2018 with retrospective from 21.03.2013 and consequently direct the respondents to revise his terminal benefits namely gratuity, earned leave salary, commuted value of pension and monthly pension based on the pay revision given in the above G.O. and settlement from the date of his retirement and to disburse the difference amounts in the gratuity, earned leave salary, commuted value of pension and monthly pension together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date when it became due to till the date of actual payment within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.P.Balasubramanian

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.22691 of 2019

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has come out with the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to revise the pay and grade pay in terms of pay revision given under G.O.Ms.No.61, Transport Department dated 30.04.2015 and in terms of Clause 5 of settlement entered under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act, dated 04.01.2018 with retrospective effect from 21.03.2013 and consequently, direct the respondents to revise the terminal benefits of the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined in the service of the respondent Corporation with effect from 13.07.1988. He was promoted as Checking Inspector on 21.03.2013. He retired from service on 30.04.2016. The service conditions of Workmen of Transport Corporations is governed by settlements signed under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act. The Settlement, dated 22.01.2011, provided for wage revision to all the transport employees/workmen from 01.09.2010. But, the Checking Inspectors and Driving Instructors were excluded in the above settlement. The respondent Transport Corporation agreed to revise the pay of the Checking Inspectors and Driving Instructors from 01.09.2010 in consultation with the Government. Accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.61, Transport Department, dated 30.04.2015, revised the pay of the Checking Inspectors and Driving Instructors with retrospective effect from 01.09.2010 and Pay of all the Senior Checking Inspectors were revised.

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get revised scale of pay, given under G.O.Ms.No.61. But, the respondents have not revised the petitioner's pay. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 22.08.2019, but no order has been passed by the respondents, so far. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

5.Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

6.Considering the nature of relief sought for in the Writ Petition and the facts of the case, without deciding the issues on merits, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.08.2019 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.22691 of 2019

¶33

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy //

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶36

Myr To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Trichy Region, Trichy. 3.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate SR-94589. +1 CC to M/s.A.RAHUL, Advocate SR-94818.

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.22691 of 2019

¶39

25.10.2019

¶40

CS(14.11.2019) 3P 6C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

D.Ayya Kannu v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ayya Kannu v. the Management

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.Kanimozhi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Solamalai, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

S.Manivannan Vs the Director General

A.K.Akilandeswar, Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Uma Maheswari Vs The Principal Secretary to Govt.

Chitra Vs the Director of Medical Education