Allowed

T.Ravindran v. The Tamil Nadu State

Madras HC10 Oct 2023WP/280/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a retired Junior Assistant seeking commutation of pension, 3rd/4th review benefits, and earned leave salary. The court held that pending criminal proceedings do not disqualify an employee from review benefits if in service during the review year and directed the respondents to settle the claimed amounts.

What did the court decide?

Directed settlement of Rs.8,00,000 towards commutation of pension, Rs.1,40,000 towards arrears of 3rd and 4th review, and Rs.2,10,000 for earned leave salary.

T.Ravindran Vs The Tamil Nadu State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.280 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

W.P.No.280 of 2020

1.T.Ravindran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu State, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to settle a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards commutation of pension amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards arrears of 3rd review and sanction of 4th review, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards earned leave salary for 120 days for the year from 2010 to 2018.

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.280 of 2020

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Soundar Raj

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran, SGP for R1 Mr.C.Senapathy,Standing Counsel for R2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of

¶21

Mandamus to direct the respondents to settle a sum of Rs.8,00,000/towards commutation of pension amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards arrears of 3rd review and sanction of 4th review and a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards earned leave salary for 120 days for the year from 2010 to 2018.

¶22

2. Heard Mr.D.Soundar Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.C.Senapathy, learned Standing Counsel for R2.

¶23

3. The facts of case in brief are as follows:

¶24

The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant with the second

¶25

respondent Corporation from 03.10.1985 and retired from service on 31.03.2018 without prejudice to the criminal proceedings pending

¶26

Page No.2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.280 of 2020

¶29

against him. No disciplinary proceedings has been taken against the petitioner so far. The petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14138 of 2018 for seeking direction to settle the terminal benefits. In view of the order passed in the said Writ Petition on 11.04.2019, the second respondent settled the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is said to have eligible for getting the commutation of pension amount, 3rd and 4th review benefits and earned leave salary. Hence the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the above prayer.

¶30

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner has not given any option with regard to commutation of pension and that is the reason why the commutation has not been granted to him. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner and hence the petitioner is not eligible to claim the benefits of 3rd and 4th review.

¶31

Page No.3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.280 of 2020

¶34

5. When the 3rd and 4th review were done in the year 2001 and 2005 respectively, the petitioner was very much in service. So the wage revision, if any, done subsequent to the said review has to be given to all those who were in service at that relevant point of time. Since the petitioner continued to be in service even though the criminal proceedings were pending against him, the second respondent cannot deny the benefits of 3rd and 4th review to him.

¶35

6. With regard to the commutation, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already given his option. But the second respondent has stated that the option was not given. Though it is submitted by the second respondent that the option to commute the pension has not been given, the same has not been substantiated by producing any documents. It is quite natural that any employee who chooses to go away from the Department on retirement would give the option to commute the pension. The petitioner has stated that he has given his option and hence even that can be taken as his

¶36

Page No.4 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.280 of 2020

¶39

exercise of option and the second respondent shall consider the sanction of commutation as well.

¶40

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has also surrendered his leave and surrender leave pay has also not been paid to him. The second respondent shall settle such arrears also, if the petitioner is found eligible.

¶41

8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to settle a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards commutation of pension amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards arrears of 3rd review and sanction of 4th review, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards earned leave salary for 120 days for the year from 2010 to 2018 to the petitioner. No costs.

¶42

10.10.2023

¶43

Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No gsk

¶44

Page No.5 of 6

¶45

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

W.P.No.280 of 2020

R.N.MANJULA, J.

gsk

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶51

2.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Railway Station New Road, Kumbakonam.

¶52

W.P.No.280 of 2020

¶53

10.10.2023

¶54

Page No.6 of 6

¶55

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

T.Ravindran v. The Tamil Nadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ravindran v. The Tamil Nadu State

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

P.Saravanan Vs Deputy Director

M.Elanchezhian Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

J.Bheeman Vs The Managing Director

R.Elanchitran Vs T.Muthukumaran

C.Gunasekaran Vs The Tamil Nadu State

T.Ravindran Vs The Tamil Nadu State