Allowed

A.Anandan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC14 Dec 2022WP/30569/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the petitioner failed to challenge the monetary aspects of the appellate order, he was not entitled to arrears before that date. However, the Court directed a revision of the petitioner's pay scale and pension from the date of the modified punishment order till superannuation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to revise the petitioner's pay scale from 22.10.2015 to 31.05.2016 and disburse arrears of wages, pension, and terminal benefits within six weeks.

A.Anandan Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

A.Anandan

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 43.

¶11

2.The Deputy Manager (Personnel), Service Book, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode - 1.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to implement the order of the 1^st respondent in Pa.No.1/D8/117/Legal/Kovai/Erode Region/1990 dated 22.10.2015 and to direct the respondents to give monetary effect by revising the pay scale of the petitioner as per the aforesaid order and to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of wages, pension and differential

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

order.

¶17

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

¶18

sum of other terminal benefits arising in the implementation of the aforesaid order.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali Vinodh

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

Mr.M.Murali Vinodh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

On the strength of certain proven charges against the petitioner herein,

¶25

the General Manager of the respondent Corporation had imposed a punishment of postponement of increment cut "with" cumulative effect for a period of one year, through his order dated 28.11.1990. As against the order of punishment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 05.08.2015. On consideration of the grounds of appeal, the first respondent, through his proceedings dated 22.10.2015, had modified the original punishment into one of postponement of increment for a period of one year

¶26

"without" cumulative effect and without monetary benefits.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that the modified punishment passed by

¶31

the appellate authority was not entered into his service records and therefore, his pensionary benefits requires to be revised. The petitioner had thereafter retired from service on 31.05.2016.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that since the monetary benefits have been withheld in the first respondent's order-inappeal, the petitioner would not be entitled for the arrears of salary.

¶33

When the petitioner had not challenged the appeal order passed by the first respondent on 22.10.2015, insofar as it fixes the monetary benefits, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner would not be entitled for the arrears of pay from the date of punishment till 22.10.2015, may be correct. However, the petitioner would be entitled for the revised pay from 22.10.2015 till 31.05.2016, on which date he had superannuated.

¶34

The respondents have not disputed the fact that the modified punishment was not given effect to, while the petitioner's pension was fixed.

¶35

3/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

¶38

While that being so, the petitioner would be entitled for the revised scale of pay from 22.10.2015 onwards till the date of his superannuation and the consequential pensionary benefits also requires to be revised.

¶39

In the light of the above findings, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to pass appropriate orders, revising the pay scale of the petitioner from 22.10.2015 to 31.05.2016, which is his date of superannuation, and accordingly disburse the arrears of wages and pension and any other terminal benefits, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶40

14.12.2022

¶41

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶42

4/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

¶45

¶46

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, 37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 43.

¶47

2.The Deputy Manager (Personnel), Service Book, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Limited, Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode - 1.

¶48

5/6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

W.P.No.30569 of 2018

¶54

14.12.2022

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

6/6

A.Anandan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Anandan 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

Mrs.R.Lakshmi, Vs The General Foreman

M.Sivalingam Vs The Member Secretary

K.Ayyappan, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Ramanikandan Vs The Commissioner

B.Padma Vs State of Tamilnadu

Raadhu Raji Vs The Director General of Police