Single Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking declarations and payment of Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity and leave encashment, relying on a Division Bench ruling that expressed no leave called 'Unearned Leave on private affairs' exists in the Transport Corporation Service Rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
-Vs-
1/6
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
PRAYER:
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 or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ calling for records relating to the second respondent's order made in Lr.No.1232/L12/TNSTC(VPM)/2019 dated 23.10.2019, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith settle the eligible dues of the petitioners by directing payment of difference in Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity and that of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs respectively, and to pass such further or other order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar. For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, AGP for R1. Mr.M.Aswin, Standing Counsel for R2.
ORDER
Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Mr.M.Aswin, Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.
of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the
2/6
impugned
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent in
Lr.No.1232/L12/TNSTC(VPM)/2019 dated 23.10.2019, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith settle the eligible dues of the petitioners by directing payment of difference in Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity and that of encashment of unearned leave on private affairs respectively, and to pass such further or other order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3.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 below:-
“11. As noticed above, there is a separate Service
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,
3/6
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
such a leave is contemplated under the Service Rule, the question of encashment does not arise. It is to be noted that 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 distant point of time, after they attained the age of superannuation, the question of claiming such a benefit does not arise.”
03.01.2024
tsh Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
4/6
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
To
5/6
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
tsh
W.P.No.33294 of 2019
03.01.2024.
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for encashment of unearned leave on private affairs is maintainable when Service Rules do not contemplate such a leave.
Whether the Single Bench is bound by the categoric finding of a Division Bench dismissing similar claims against Transport Corporation employees.
C.R.Shunmugam ors.
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
BATTU DEVANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
