Allowed

Krishnasamy.E v. the Management of

Madras HC20 Oct 2021WP(MD)/18477/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a petition by a retired transport employee against the TNSTC and Pension Fund for delayed receipt of terminal benefits. The Court, noting mutual consent, directed the respondents to pay penal interest at 6% per annum for the period of retardation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay penal interest at 6% per annum on belated retirement benefits from the date of retirement till actual disbursement.

Krishnasamy.E Vs the Management of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18477 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.10.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.18477 of 2021

¶4

E.Krishnasamy ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Management of

¶7

State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd,

¶8

Rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan Salai,

¶9

Chennai – 2.

¶10

2.The Administrator,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam,

¶12

Anna Salai,

¶13

Chennai – 2. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum, for the period of delay from 01.04.2020 to 01.06.2021, in paying the amounts paid towards his terminal and pension benefits namely EPF Employee's Contribution, Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leaves and Commutated Value of Pension, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and without affecting his right to claim the balance amounts towards those benefits.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajamohan,

¶16

Standing Counsel for R1. Mr.A.Swaminathan, Standing Counsel for R2.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum, for the period of delay from 01.04.2020 to 01.06.2021, in paying the amounts paid towards his terminal and pension benefits namely EPF Employee's Contribution, Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leaves and Commutated Value of Pension, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and without affecting his right to claim the balance amounts towards those benefits.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶20

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

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P(MD)No.18477 of 2021

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner is a retired employee of the first respondent transport corporation. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2020. The respondents have settled the retirement benefits to the petitioner only in the month of June 2021.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the issues involved in the present writ petition are that the respondents had settled the aforesaid amount belatedly, after a delay of 1 year and the respondents have also not paid interest for the belated payment to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation to the concerned authorities to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the earlier writ petition of this court in W.P.(MD)No.19950 of 2020 dated 04.01.2021, J. Gurumoorthy vs TNSTC (Kumbakonam) Ltd . In the above referred judgement, this Court has fixed the rate of interest at 6 % per annum for the belated payment of retirement benefits. On the same line, orders to be in the present Writ Petition.

¶26

Mr.R.Rajamohan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, would submit that the respondents had settled the retirement benefit to the petitioner belatedly. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest as decided in the earlier writ petition of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.19950 of 2020.

¶27

In the light of the above observations and with the consent of both parties, there shall be a direction to the respondents 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 four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the condition that if the petitioner has not already given up his right for claiming interest in the retirement benefits.

¶28

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

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

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

¶32

2/3

¶33

W.P(MD)No.18477 of 2021

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

1.The Managing Director, The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶38

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

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.R.RAJAMOHAN, Advocate ( SR-32127[F] dated 21/10/2021 )

¶40

W.P(MD)No.18477 of 2021 20.10.2021

¶41

KMV(CO) KB(09.11.2021) 3P 4C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Krishnasamy.E v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnasamy.E v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mlwa Hr.Sec.School Vs R.Saminathan

Ganesan Vs P.Rajarathinavelu

Ganesan Vs N.Palanichamy

Chandrasekar Vs the Director

Sheik Mukthar Vs the District Collector

Paramasivan.S Vs the Management of