Allowed

P. Ramesh v. the Managing Director

Madras HC18 Feb 2020WP(MD)/3217/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madurai Bench, issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to pay penal interest at 6% per annum on belatedly settled terminal retirement benefits. The Court rejected the request for installment payments due to the prejudice caused to the retired employee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay penal interest at 6% per annum on belated retirement benefits within three months.

P. Ramesh Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3217 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.02.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3217 of 2020

P.Ramesh

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Bye Pass Road,

¶12

Madurai.

¶13

2.The General Manager,

¶14

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Bye Pass Road,

¶15

Collectorate Post, Dindigul-4. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to disburse interest at the rate of 6% for retirement benefits gratuity, provident fund, leave salary and commutation.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah Standing Counsel

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶21

2.The petitioner's retirement benefits were settled belatedly and in view of such belated settlement, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for interest on the belated payment of the terminal benefits.

¶22

3.It is brought to the notice of this Court that in identical cases, a batch of writ petitions were entertained by this Court and directions have been issued to the respondents to pay interest, at the rate of 6% per annum on the belated payment of the terminal benefits. This Court does not intend to deviate from such orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed in similar cases.

¶23

1/2

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.3217 of 2020

¶25

4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of the financial burden cast on the respondent Corporation, they may be permitted to pay the interest on the belated payment in liberal monthly installments.

¶26

5.I am not in agreement with the said representation made. There was already a duty cast on the respondent Corporation to pay the terminal benefits on the date of retirement itself and the very fact that the belated disbursement of retirement benefit had already put the retired employee to serious prejudice, entertaining the present request for disbursement of the interest on the belated payment in installments, could cause further prejudice to the retired employee.

¶27

6.In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondent Corporation to pay the penal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the belated payment of the retirement benefits for the period from the date of the retirement, till the date of actual disbursement, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

7.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

rmk

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH, Advocate ( SR-7081[F] dated 19/02/2020 )

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.K.GOKUL, Advocate ( SR-6917[F] dated 18/02/2020 )

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.3217 of 2020 18.02.2020

¶34

JMN(26.02.2020) 2P : 3C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

P. Ramesh v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ramesh v. the Managing Director

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

Gandhi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Murugan Vs the Secretary to the Govt

N.Sivabalan Vs the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of Adi Dravidar Welfare

C.Nambinarayanan Vs The Commissioner

A.K. Rajendran Vs the Managing Director

M.Saraswathi Vs The Secretary to Government