Disposed

R.Aundichamy, v. the Management of T.N.S.T.C.

Madras HC26 Feb 2019WP(MD)/5657/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought terminal benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, EPF contributions, and pension arrears, with interest from the respondents representing the TNSTC and the Pension Fund Trust. The petitioner agreed to deduct Rs. 80,000/- from the claim. Without examining the merits, the court directed the respondents to settle the agreed amount within eight weeks

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pass orders settling the petitioner's terminal benefits as agreed, deducting Rs. 80,000/-, within eight weeks.

R.Aundichamy, Vs the Management of T.N.S.T.C. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :26.02.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶4

WP(MD)No.5657 of 2018

R.Aundichamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigu Region, Represented by its General Manager, Dindigul.

¶9

2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to pay the petitioner all his terminal benefits namely Gratuity, Encashment of Leave and etc., together with 18% interest per annum, along with interest amount towards the delay periods from 30.04.2016 to 05.12.2017 and from 30.04.2016 to 03.01.2018 in paying the EPF Employees Contribution amount in parts as Rs.1,52,000/ and Rs.89,401/- respectively, at the same rate and further directing the respondents to pay him correct and full pension along with arrears of same from the month of May, 2016 and also pension payable to him for the months of May 2016 to August 2016, under TNSTCE Pension Fund Rules, together with 18% interest per annum within a time frame.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For R-1 : Mr.A.Jeyaraman For R-2 : Mr.AP.Muthupandian

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to disburse the terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶15

2.The claim made by the petitioner through his representation dated 04.01.2018, for settlement of the terminal benefits, has not been considered so far by the respondents, which resulted in filing of this writ petition.

¶16

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

¶17

3.When the matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned

¶18

¶19

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is agreed by the petitioner to deduct Rs.80,000/- and to pay the remaining amount, which according to the respondents, is also agreeable.

¶20

4.Under such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's case, directs the respondents to pass appropriate orders settling the terminal benefits as agreed above. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

5.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

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

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶24

dsk

¶25

¶26

1.The General Manager, The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigu Region, Represented by its General Manager, Dindigul.

¶27

2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate in SR No.50060

¶29

WP(MD)No.5657 of 2018

¶30

NM/PS/03.05.2019/2P/4C

¶31

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

R.Aundichamy, v. the Management of T.N.S.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Aundichamy, v. the Management of T.N.S.T.C.

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

A.Priyanka, Vs the Principal Secretary to

R.Seethalakshmi, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Subbarao Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Killivalavan, Vs the Management of

A.Kanagarajan Vs the Managing Director

Baskara Pandi, S/O.v.Pandy, Vs the Dean, Madurai Rajaji Govt.