Disposed

E.Ganesan v. M/s. Metropolitan Transport

Madras HC13 Apr 2022WP/1823/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning pension and retirement benefits, the petitioner sought settlement of earned leave, terminal benefits, and other dues. The court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent corporation to settle the claimed amounts within two weeks and directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make representation; Respondent directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks.

E.Ganesan Vs M/s. Metropolitan Transport — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.4.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.NO.1823 OF 2020

¶6

E.Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, No. 2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶9

Prayer :

¶10

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to settle the petitioners earned leave surrender amount of Rs.2,47,398/- interest amount of Rs.1,72,895/- towards belated settlement of terminal benefits a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards Social Security Scheme a sum of Rs.4,500/- towards Erode Engineering college and a sum of Rs. 80,000/-towards Family Benefit Fund With 6% interest.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

According to the petitioner, the petitioner caused a legal notice to settle the petitioner's Earned leave surrender amount of Rs.2,47,398/- interest amount of Rs.1,72,895/- towards belated settlement of terminal benefits, a sum of Rs.20,000/towards Social Security Scheme, a sum of Rs.4,500/- towards Erode Engineering college and a sum of Rs. 80,000/-towards Family Benefit Fund along with 6% interest.

¶13

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

¶14

The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the request of the petitioner has already been considered by the respondent, if any representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent will pass appropriate orders.

¶15

Considering the urgency of the petitioner to meet out the medical expenditure, marriage expenses and to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner is permitted to make representation to the respondent to settle the petitioner's Earned leave surrender amount of Rs.2,47,398/- interest amount of Rs.1,72,895/- towards belated settlement of terminal benefits, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards Social Security Scheme, a sum of Rs.4,500/- towards Erode Engineering college and a sum of Rs. 80,000/-towards Family Benefit Fund along with 6% interest within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the respondent is directed to consider the said representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks thereafter.

¶16

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

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

vaan

¶22

¶23

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. No. 2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600002.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.D.Soundar Raj, Advocate, S.R.No.25582

¶25

W.P.No.1823 of 2020

¶26

SVI(CO) PM/04/05/2022

¶27

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

E.Ganesan v. M/s. Metropolitan Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Ganesan v. M/s. Metropolitan Transport

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

B.Arun Vs The Director of Industrial

N.Elankavi Vs S.Rajamani

Ranipet Roca Labour Union Vs The Management of

R.Bhoomadevi Vs The Joint Commissioner of Police

M.Meganathan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Sakithivel Vs The Managing Director