Disposed

The Governing Council v. K.v.Neelakantan

Madras HC12 Jun 2024WA/718/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a batch of Writ Appeals and Petitions regarding encashment of sick leave for IRT employees. While rejecting the need to quash proceedings retrospectively, the Court directed the employers to pay 4% per annum interest on belated settlement amounts to eligible employees.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellants department to pay interest at the rate of 4% p.a. to respondents for belated settlement amounts.

The Governing Council Vs K.v.Neelakantan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.A.Nos.718 & 720 of 2022

¶7

W.P.Nos.6565, 6567, 6571, 6560, 6561, 6564, 7561, 7558, 7556, 7554, 7552, 7563, 7605, 7602, 7598, 7596, 7593, 9973, 6463, 6466, 6469, 6472, 6475, 6476, 6479 of 2023

¶8

and

¶9

WMP.Nos.6648, 6642, 7705, 6510, 6509, 7662, 7663, 7664, 7665, 7671, 7670, 7657, 7658, 7659, 7660, 7704, 7676, 7675, 7726, 7724, 7723, 7722, 7714, 7713, 7710, 7709, 10022, 10024, 10025, 6494, 6518, 6517, 6515, 6514, 6511, 6507, 6503, 6500, 6497, 6522, 6520, 6647, 6645, 6644, 6643, 6640, 6639, 6638, 6637, 6636 and 6635 of 2023 CMP.Nos.4984 and 4979 of 2022

¶10

W.A.Nos.718 and 720 of 2022

¶11

1.The Governing Council, Institute of Road Transport, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

¶12

2.The Institute of Road Transport, Rep by its Director, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. ... Appellants in both W.As. vs.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

1.K.V.Neelakantan

¶16

2.Pallom Baalaiah

¶17

3.The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government,

¶18

Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶19

W.A.No.6565 of 2023 V.Somanathan

¶20

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶21

R1 in W.A.No.718 of 2022

¶22

.. R1 in W.A.No.720 of 2022

¶23

.. R2 in both W.As.

¶24

... Petitioner

¶25

vs.

¶26

1.Govt. of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶27

2.Institute of Road Transport, Rep. by its Director, Tatarmani, Chennai-600 113.

¶28

3.The Governing Council, Institute of Road Transport, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

¶29

.. Respondents

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶33

Prayer in Writ Appeals.: Writ Appeals filed under under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.11.2016 made in W.P.Nos.20994 and 20995 of 2008.

¶34

Prayer in Writ Petition: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent in Proceedings No.2552/A1/2002-1, dated 09.09.2003 and Proceeding No.2532/A1/IRT/2002, dated 24.01.2005 and all other connected records and quash the same insofar as allowing the encashment of sick/medical leave only at the rate of basic pay and dearness allowance as on 01.09.1998 at the time of retirement and insofar as withdrawing the encashment of sick/medical leave at the time of retirement retrospectively with effect from 01.09.1998 and deleting Rule 4(f) of the IRT Leave Rules respectively and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the petitioner sick/medical leave salary for 173 days, which accrued to his credit upto 31.08.1998 based on the rate of basic pay and dearness allowance paid to the petitioner as on the date of his retirement, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of his retirement, till it is actually paid to the petitioner, award costs.

¶35

For Appellants : Mr.A.Thayaparan for M/s.Kalaramesh For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajay Khose For Respondents : Mr.L.G.Sahadevan for R1 in W.As. Mr.V.Manoharan, Additional Govt. Pleader for R2 in W.As. and for R1 in W.Ps. Mr.A.Thayaparan for Mr/Kalaramesh for R2 & R3 in W.Ps.

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶39

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶40

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. ] The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the writ appeals

¶41

have been preferred as against the order of the Writ Court permitting the respondents to encash the sick leave accrued in their account earned between 01.09.1998 and 24.01.2005. The appellants have raised a ground in these writ appeals that the impugned proceedings issued by the appellant dated 24.01.2005 has given retrospective effect, on that ground the order of the Writ Court is liable to be set aside.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in pursuant to the interim order passed in the writ appeals, the appellant Corporation has paid the sick leave encashment to the respective respondent/employees. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Writ Court has not passed any orders for payment of interest to the respondents and the respondents has also not chosen to file any appeal for payment of interest for belated payment.

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶46

The statement made by the counsel for appellants has not been controverted by the private respondents and the respective petitioners. They all in union would submit that, no further orders are necessary in these appeals. It is made clear that at the time of retirement, the respondents/employees are entitled for encashment of sick leave from the date of their appointment till 01.09.1998.

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondents in the writ appeals and writ petitioners seeks for payment of interest @ 4% p.a., since there is delay in settling the amounts by the appellants. To that extent, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents/employees.

¶48

Accepting the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, this Court directs the appellants department to pay interest @ 4% to all the respondents in the writ appeals and writ petitioners, if not already settled, for the amounts which have been settled belatedly, subject to their eligibility for encashment of sick leave, till the payment of the said amount to the

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶52

respondents. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the appellants department as early as possible.

¶53

These Writ appeals and Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

(D.K.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 12.06.2024

¶55

Intex : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Jvm

¶56

¶57

1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶58

2.The Director, Institute of Road Transport, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

¶59

3.The Governing Council, Institute of Road Transport, Taramani, Chennai-600 113.

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶63

4.The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶64

¶65

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

¶66

WA.Nos.718 of 2022 etc., batch

¶67

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶68

Jvm

¶69

W.A.Nos.718 & 720 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.6565 of 2023 etc., batch

¶70

12.06.2024

¶71

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

¶72

The Governing Council v. K.v.Neelakantan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Governing Council v. K.v.Neelakantan

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

Dr.M.Mathiyazhagan Vs the Member Secretary

Tdi International India (P) Ltd., Vs the Airport Director

C.Kasi (Deceased) Vs Rajam Radhakrishnan

The member secretary Vs S.Manikandan

T.Tamil Selvan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Accountant General, Vs S.Amirtham