Partly allowed

Ganesan v. N.Palanichamy

Madras HC8 Oct 2021SUB A(MD)/199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Transport Corporation General Manager sought a six-month extension to settle pension benefits. The court refused, granting only six weeks to comply. It stated that default would result in a statutory notice being issued against the corporation.

What did the court decide?

The court granted six weeks time for the petitioner corporation to settle the directed amount; a statutory notice will be issued in case of default.

Ganesan Vs N.Palanichamy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Sub Application (MD) No.199 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty One PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶4

Sub Application (MD) No.199 of 2021 in Cont.P.(MD) No.673 of 2021

¶5

GANESAN THE GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI) LTD, DINDIGUL REGION, DINDIGUL. ...PETITIONER/1^st CONTEMNOR/1^st RESPONDENT

¶6

1 N.PALANICHAMY ... 1^st RESPONDENT / PETITIONER / PETITIONER

¶7

2 BHAMA

¶8

THE ADMINISTRATOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT

¶9

EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND TRUST,

¶10

THIRUVALLUVAR ILLAM,

¶11

ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2. ... 2^nd RESPONDENT/2^nd CONTEMNOR/2^nd RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to grant six months time for reporting compliance of the order made in WP(MD)No.24733 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Honourable Court.

¶13

Prayer in CONT P(MD). 673 of 2021 :

¶14

To punish the contemnors/respondents for willfully disobeying not complying with the order of this Honble Court dated 22-11-2019 W.P(MD).No. 24733 of 2019.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 24733 of 2019 :

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for the period of delay from 01.05.2018 to 21.09.2019, in paying the amounts paid towards the terminal and pension benefits of the petitioner namely EPF Employee's Contribution, Gratuity, Encashment of Earned/Sick Leaves and Commutated Value of Pension, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and without affecting his right to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claim balance amounts towards those benefits.

¶17

1/3

¶18

Sub Application (MD) No.199 of 2021

¶19

ORDER :This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.S.ARUNACHALAM, Advocate on behalf of the 1^st Respondent, the court made the following order:-

¶20

This Sub Application has been filed by the Transport Corporation seeking extension of time for a period of six months for settling the amount to the Respondent as directed by this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit that the aforesaid six months' period is a longer period and three weeks' time is sufficient for complying with the orders passed by this court.

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel is making a final request that the Petitioner corporation will settle the amount within a period of six weeks' and if not settled, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court.

¶23

Recording the above statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Petitioner corporation, this Court is inclined to grant six weeks time to comply with the order passed by this Court. In case of default in settling the said amount, statutory notice shall be issued as against the Petitioner corporation.

¶24

Post the matter after six weeks.

¶25

Accordingly, this sub application is ordered.

¶26

/ TRUE COPY /

¶27

/ /2021

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

1 MS.BHAMA

THE ADMINISTRATOR,

TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT

¶34

EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND TRUST,

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ THIRUVALLUVAR ILLAM, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2.

¶36

2/3

¶37

Sub Application (MD) No.199 of 2021

¶38

2 MR.GANESAN,

¶39

THE GENERAL MANAGER,

¶40

TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI) LTD, DINDIGUL REGION,

DINDIGUL.

ORDER

Sub Application (MD) No.199 of 2021 in Cont.P.(MD) No.673 of 2021 Date :08/10/2021

¶45

VB/SKN/SAR.I/28.10.2021/3P/3C

¶46

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

¶47

3/3

Ganesan v. N.Palanichamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan v. N.Palanichamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Pitchai, Vs Director General of Police

The Secretary Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Secretary Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

Mlwa Hr.Sec.School Vs R.Saminathan

Ganesan Vs P.Rajarathinavelu

Ganesan Vs R.Kani