Partly allowed

A.Titus v. The Management of

Madras HC25 Jul 2024WP(MD)/16774/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for payment of 12% interest on belated terminal benefits. The court awarded 6% interest for the delay period due from the date of retirement to the date of disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum for the delay period from 31.01.2021 to 08.12.2022 and disburse within six weeks.

A.Titus Vs The Management of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD) No.16774 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.16774 of 2024

A.Titus

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. By its General Manager, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶11

2.The Administrator, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12 percentage per annum for the period of delay from the petitioners date of retirement 31.01.2021 to till the date of reimbursement 08.12.2022 of amount paid towards the petitioner's terminal and pension benefits namely EPF Employees Contribution Gratuity and encashment of Earned Sick Leave and commutation value

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

WP(MD) No.16774 of 2024

¶17

of pension within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court without affecting the petitioners right to claim balance amounts towards those benefits.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.K.Senthilkumar (R1) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (R2)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.01.2021, has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay 12% interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits.

¶21

2 . Heard Mr.R.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned standing counsel for the second respondent.

¶22

3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

WP(MD) No.16774 of 2024

¶26

4 . As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶27

his terminal benefits have been settled only on 08.12.2022 with the delay of about two years.

¶28

5 . Since the petitioner is in no way responsible for the delay caused in disbursing the said benefits, the respondent Transport Corporation shall pay interest to the petitioner for the period of delay between 31.01.2021 and 08.12.2022 at the rate of 6% per annum and disburse the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

6 . With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

No costs.

¶31

25.07.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No sm

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

WP(MD) No.16774 of 2024

R.N.MANJULA, J.

1.The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Rep. By its General Manager, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶39

2.The Administrator, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶40

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.16774 of 2024

¶41

25.07.2024

¶42

4/4

¶43

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

A.Titus v. The Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Titus v. The Management of

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

The Regional Manager Vs The Joint Commissioner of Labour

The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Ravikumar a Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Kaleeswaran K Vs The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Mohanarajan T Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.

T.Kandasamy Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.