Dismissed

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Jan 2024WP/25708/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired transport corporation officers' association petitioned for settlement of gratuity arrears and encashment of unearned leave on private affairs. The court adopted a prior Division Bench finding that no such leave rule exists in the Corporation's Service Rules, making the writ petition dismissable.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed without costs.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 03.01.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶7

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Retired Officers Association (Salem) Bearing Regn.No.118 of 2013 Rep by its Secretary, M.S.Sellandi No.1/1, Ragavan Street, Chinna Tirupathy, Salem – 636 008. ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Principal Secretary Department of Transport Corporation Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶10

2. The Managing Director

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ calling for records relating to the second respondent's order made in Ref. TNSTC/Slm/Legal/Col/Rev/Appl/73/2018 dated 28.09.2018, to quash the

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶16

same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith settle the eligible dues of the petitioners annexed to the writ petition directing payment of difference in Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and that of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs respectively, and to pass such further or orther order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar. For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, AGP for R1. Mr.G.Anandhakrishnan for R.Babu - R2.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Mr.G.Anandhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶20

The petitioner's association have approached this Court seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant

¶21

to the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent in Ref.TNSTC/Slm/Legal/Col/Rev/Appl/73/2018 dated 28.09.2018 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to forthwith settle the eligible dues of the petitioners annexed to the writ petition directing

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶25

payment of difference in Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and that of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs respectively.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing, a decision of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A(MD)Nos.939 to 944 of 2017 etc., has been produced, in which, the issue raised in the present writ petition has been squarely dealt with in paragraph No.11, which is reproduced

¶27

below:-

¶28

“11. As noticed above, there is a separate Service

¶29

Rule for the employees of the appellants/Transport Corporation. Annexure-II of the common Service Rules deals with Unearned Leave and on perusal of the said Rules, we find that there is no such Leave Rule called as Unearned Leave on private affairs. Thus, unless and until, such a leave is contemplated under the Service Rule, the question of encashment does not arise. It is to be noted that

¶30

all the respondents/writ petitioners have all served in the appellants/Transport Corporation and were bound by the Service Rules framed by the Corporation. Therefore, at this

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶34

distant point of time, after they attained the age of superannuation, the question of claiming such a benefit does not arise.”

¶35

In view of the categoric finding of the learned Division Bench, this Court being bound by the observations of the learned Division Bench, the writ petition has to be necessarily dismissed.

¶36

Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶37

03.01.2024

¶38

tsh Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶39

To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Principal Secretary Department of Transport Corporation Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.

¶40

2.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶44

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶45

tsh

¶46

W.P.No.25708 of 2019

¶47

03.01.2024.

¶48

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

¶49

5/5

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Uma Kalai Selvi Vs Government of Tamilnadu

M.S.Sankarapandian, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Balasubramanian Vs M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

R.Gopalakrishnan, Vs Government of Tamilnadu

C.R.Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.S.Vaidyanathan Vs The Secretary to Government