Disposed

P.Devaraj v. The Management

Madras HC1 Nov 2023WP/318/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition holding that while he was not entitled to backwages, he remained entitled to current wages and continuity of service benefits as per the earlier order in W.P.No.8550 of 2018. The Respondent was directed to grant current wages within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Respondent to grant the Petitioner current wages as per the order in W.P.No.8550 of 2018 within four weeks.

P.Devaraj Vs The Management — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.318 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No.318 of 2020

¶7

P.Devaraj Driver, Staff No.D 16275 Gangadevakuppam Sembilipuram Post Cheyyur Taluk Kanchipuram District 603 304 ... Petitioner

¶8

/Vs/

¶9

The Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002. ... Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to revise the salary of the Petitioner by taking note of increment, intervening settlement benefits, review benefits for the non employment period.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu For Respondents : Mr.R.Balaji

¶12

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

1/6

W.P.No.318 of 2020

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to revise the salary of the Petitioner by taking note of increment, intervening settlement benefits, review benefits for the non employment period.

¶17

2.Heard Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu, learned counsel appearing for the

¶18

Petitioner, Mr.R.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for Respondent.

¶19

3.The Petitioner who was dismissed from service got reinstated subsequently, in view of the order of the approving authority and subsequent order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.8550 of 2018 dated 01.10.2018. In the said Writ Petition following order has been passed:

¶20

“8. In the light of the agreement reached by both sides, the

¶21

following order is passed. In these Writ Petitions:

¶22

“(i)Reinstatement of the workmen is ordered and that would be without any monetary benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. However, the workmen will be entitled to current wages from the date of their jointing.

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P.No.318 of 2020

¶26

(ii)During the period of non-employment, the contribution payable to the Pension Fund Trust by the employer shall be paid. Employee are not entitled to bonus for the period of nonengagement/non-employment.

¶27

(ii)The workmen are entitled to the benefits of intervening 12(3) settlement. The continuity of service, increment due and other benefits shall be on notional basis for the purpose of calculation of eligible period of pension.

¶28

(iv)The workmen shall report, for duty on or before 2210.2018, subject to medical fitness.”

¶29

4.Now the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Corporation without properly implementing the order of this Court, has chosen to give him a salary which was drawn by him at the time when he was terminated from service.

¶30

5.When the order itself is clear that the Petitioner is entitled to current wages with continuity of service, that order has to be implemented by the Respondent in the manner that the Petitioner is entitled to get the same wages, which is being drawn by the other employees of his nature. Eventhough the

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

W.P.No.318 of 2020

¶34

Petitioner has not given with the benefit of getting the backwages, the continuity of service should not be denied to him. In such circumstances, there is no justification on the part of the Respondent to withheld the correct wages to the Petitioner.

¶35

6.Since the Respondent's action is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in the above stated Writ Petition, the representation of the Petitioner dated 20.06.2019 should be considered positively and appropriate orders should be passed within a period of four weeks for granting him the current wages as ordered by this Court in W.P.No.8550 of 2018 dated 01.10.2018.

¶36

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

01.11.2023

¶38

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

¶39

sai

¶40

To The Management Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Pallavan Illam, Anna Salai

¶41

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

4/6

W.P.No.318 of 2020

Chennai 600 002.

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

5/6

W.P.No.318 of 2020

R.N.MANJULA, J.

sai

W.P. No.318 of 2020

01.11.2023

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

¶53

6/6

P.Devaraj v. The Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Devaraj v. The Management

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

A.Harikrishnan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.R.Marjorie Raj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.Sivaprakasam Vs The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer

P.Sathya Vs Director

P.Rajasekaran Vs The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

V.Rasu Vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies