Disposed

Smt.P.T.Sarala, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2023WP/31542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking terminal benefits for a deceased employee's family. The court held that a final order on merits was required before issuing a mandamus, directing the respondent to pass an order based on the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.09.2017 and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

Smt.P.T.Sarala, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.31542 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No. 31542 of 2017

P.T.Sarala

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary, Department of Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd, (CO-OPTEX), No.350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶12

3.The Senior Manager, (Public Relations & Systems) Tamil Nadu Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society Ltd(Co-Optex) No.350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay to the petitioner the terminal benefits, including Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund, Security Deposit Interest, Backwages, Arreas of Dearness Allowance, Provident Fund Contribution and other benefits payable in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner's husband Mr.P.S.Thirugnanam(now

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.No.31542 of 2017

¶17

deceased), from the date of his initial appointment on 05.10.1960 till his superannuation in the year 1998 in the post of Grade-I Manager at the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd(Co-optex) together with interest thereon from the date on which the said benefits had become payable till the date of actual payment.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.Sugesh For Respondents 1 : Mr.M.Shahjahan Special Government Pleader

¶19

For Respondent 3 : No appearance O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner, the terminal benefits, including Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund, Security Deposit Interest, Backwages, Arreas of Dearness Allowance, Provident Fund Contribution and other benefits payable in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner's husband Mr.P.S.Thirugnanam(now deceased), from the date of his initial appointment on 05.10.1960 till his superannuation in the year 1998 in the post of Grade-I Manager at the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd(Co-optex) together with interest thereon, from the date on which the said benefits had become payable, till the date of actual payment.

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

W.P.No.31542 of 2017

¶24

The petitioner is the wife of one P.S.Thirugnanam, who was employed with the respondent society(Co-optex) where he worked as Grade-I Manager till his superannuation in the year 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was not paid his terminal benefits citing C.C.No.4051/1991 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. However, the petitioner's case is that her husband was acquitted in the said criminal case. Therefore, there was no impediment for withholding or denying the terminal benefits. The petitioner has given a representation on 11.09.2017 to the respondents referring to earlier representations and personal visits pertaining to release of all terminal and service benefits payable to the petitioner's husband. The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the said terminal benefits.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit setting out the calculation and concluding that no amount is payable to the petitioner's husband and on the contrary, it is only petitioner's husband who has to pay a sum of Rs.1,63,824.08/- to the respondents.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special

¶27

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

¶28

3/6

¶29

W.P.No.31542 of 2017

¶30

Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

¶31

Considering the fact that the prayer sought for in the writ petition is only a writ of mandamus and in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it would be appropriate for the respondents to pass a considered order on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.09.2017 so that the petitioner would have a fair opportunity to challenge the same, if it is adverse to her interests.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.09.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

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

¶34

19.06.2023

¶35

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/6

¶37

W.P.No.31542 of 2017

¶38

Speaking/non speaking order nr

¶39

¶40

The Secretary, Department of Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.

¶41

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd, (CO-OPTEX), No.350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶42

3.The Senior Manager, (Public Relations & Systems) Tamil Nadu Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society Ltd(Co-Optex) No.350, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶43

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

5/6

W.P.No.31542 of 2017

P.B.BALAJI, J.,

W.P.No. 31542 of 2017

¶49

19.06.2023

¶50

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

¶51

6/6

Smt.P.T.Sarala, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P.T.Sarala, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

R.Chandrasekaran Vs P.Sethuraman

K.Ramesh, Vs The State Commissioner

Ms.S.Vijayalakshmi Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Little Flower, W/o.K.Sahayam Vs The State of TamilNadu

V.Balasubramanian Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Jotheeswari, Vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies