Allowed

A.Sivaniah v. Arasu Rubber Corporation

Madras HC7 Nov 2022WP(MD)/13229/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Divisional Manager, challenged the rejection of his claim for gratuity and provident fund due to pending cases. The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to disburse employee contributions within twelve weeks while reserving regularization of suspension for pending proceedings' outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's contribution to Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave, and Unearned Leave directed to be disbursed within twelve weeks.

A.Sivaniah Vs Arasu Rubber Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

A.Sivaniah

... Petitioner

Vs.

Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Vadachery, Nagercoil-1, Through its Managing Director. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in C.No.F2/13293/17, dated 13.08.2018 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondent to disburse the gratuity, General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and Encashment of Unearned Leave on private affairs to the petitioner with interest within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶18

The petitioner joined the respondent corporation and at the time of superannuation, he was working as Divisional Manager. He was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action as well as criminal case then pending against him. It is not in dispute that till date, the said proceedings are still pending. The petitioner applied to the management for disbursement of certain benefits such as gratuity and encashment of earned leave. Such request was rejected by citing the pendency of the criminal case and disciplinary action. Questioning the rejection order dated 13.08.2018, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent reiterated the respective contentions projected in the pleadings.

¶20

After a careful consideration of the same, I am satisfied that the issue on hand is no longer res integra . One such order dated 22.08.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.139 of 2016 has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. It was held therein as follows:-

¶21

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

¶22

2/5

¶23

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

¶24

In this regard, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner urged this Court in respect of the order passed in W.P.No.15457 of 2015 on 02.06.2015, Paragraph 7 of the order is extracted as under:-

¶25

In view of the same, a direction is issued to the respondents to disburse encashment of earned leave and encashment of unearned leave on private affairs. As far as Special Provident Fund is concerned, the respondents are directed to refund the same, if there is any contribution made by the petitioner. If the petitioner has contributed towards other terminal benefits, the extent to the contribution made by the petitioner shall also be paid. The respondents are directed to disburse the aforesaid amount, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

The above said order was taken by way of an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.207 of 2016 and the order passed in that writ petition was confirmed and the writ appeal was dismissed. The State preferred SLP (c) No.016229 of 2016 and the same was also dismissed on 06.07.2017.

¶27

8.Thus, the respondent is directed to disburse the personal contribution of the writ petitioner, including Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned Leave and Encashment of Unearned Leave as early as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

Respectfully applying the aforesaid ratio, the order impugned in the

¶29

writ petition is set aside. The respondent is directed to disburse gratuity, encashment of earned leave and the petitioner's contribution to the provident fund to the writ petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of

¶30

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

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

¶33

receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that regularisation of the suspension order will depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶34

The writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs.

¶35

07.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶36

¶37

Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., Vadachery, Nagercoil-1, Through its Managing Director.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶39

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

¶40

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶41

rmi

¶42

W.P(MD)No.13229 of 2019

¶43

07.11.2022

¶44

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

¶45

5/5

A.Sivaniah v. Arasu Rubber Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sivaniah v. Arasu Rubber Corporation

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

P.Kanagaraj at Kannan Vs the District Manager

T.Pandian Vs the District Manager

Jayasankar.S Vs Union Bank of India

J.Vijila, Vs the Secretary to the

Subramanian.a Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mahesh Kumar K Vs The State of Tamil Nadu