Allowed

M.Rajaram v. the Managing Director

Madras HC14 Sept 2023WP(MD)/2274/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought quashing of an order denying seniority/pay revision benefits to a retired employee. The Court followed a prior order and directed the Corporation to calculate and pay the difference in encashment of earned leave based on the VI Pay Commission revision retrospectively from 01.01.2006.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Respondents directed to pay difference in encashment of earned leave based on VI Pay Commission revision from 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2009 without interest.

M.Rajaram Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2274 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 30.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2274 of 2019

M.Rajaram

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶11

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Kattapomman Nagar, Tirunelveli 627 011.

¶12

2.The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Nagercoil Region, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his order no. Thani / Sapapi 2 / Tha.A.Po.Ka(Thili) / 2016, dated 21.02.2017 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay the difference amount of encashment of earned leave based on the revised scale of pay as per the VI pay commission report.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Thangamani For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

W.P(MD)No.2274 of 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed against the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent, dated 21.02.2017 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the difference amount of encashment of earned leave based on the revised scale of pay as per the VI pay commission report.

¶21

2. The petitioner was working as Senior Deputy Manager and retired from service on 31.03.2007. The Government issued revised scale of pay and allowances for the Government employees with effect from 01.01.2006 through G.O.Ms.Nos.234 and 236, Finance (PC) Department, dated 01.06.2009. The respondent Corporation has also extended the same revision, vide G.O.Ms.No.63, Transport (D) Department, dated 05.02.2010. The said G.O., has given revision retrospectively from 01.01.2006. Therefore, the petitioner being in managerial cadre is seeking the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.63, Transport (D) Department, dated 05.02.2010.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.2274 of 2019

¶25

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the similar issue, this Court passed an order in W.P(MD)No.1318 of 2010 dated 30.03.2023.

¶26

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would fairly concede the said submission.

¶27

5. Heard Mr.C.Thangamani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

¶28

6. By following the order passed by this Court on 30.03.2023 in W.P(MD)No.1318 of 2019, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. From 01.01.2006 until the date of retirement, the petitioner is entitled to the revision of pay and earned leave also. Therefore, this Court is directing the respondents to calculate the revision as per G.O.Ms.No.63, Transport (D) Department, dated 05.02.2010 for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.07.2009 and pay the difference within a period of four months from

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.2274 of 2019

¶32

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the said amount does not carry any interest.

¶33

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶34

8. No costs.

¶35

14.09.2023

¶36

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No CM

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.2274 of 2019

¶40

BATTU DEVANAND, J CM

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.2274 of 2019

¶42

14.09.2023

¶43

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

¶44

M.Rajaram v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajaram 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.a.Kalidoss, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Thonthi Vs the Labour Officer

The Bharathidadan University, Vs Ramesh .S

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs R.a.Ramachandran

R.Ramesh, (Conductor, Vs the Managing Director

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Sivalingam, S/O.Chinnakannu