Allowed

Jothibasu.P v. the Managing Director

Madras HC4 Jun 2024WP(MD)/19200/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired driver seeking 18% interest on belatedly settled terminal benefits. Relying on a prior order in C. Murugan, the court directed the respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% per annum on belatedly settled terminal benefits to be paid within 12 weeks of receipt of the order.

Jothibasu.P Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19200 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 04.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19200 of 2021

P.Jothibasu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director,

¶11

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai – 16.

¶12

2.The General Manager,

¶13

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.

¶14

3.The Administrator,

¶15

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., on the belated payment of terminal benefits such as provident fund Rs.77,912/-, gratuity Rs.3,38,503/-, backwages Rs.8,63,491/- from the date of retirement on 31.05.2016 till the date of settlement.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.P.Balasubramanian Standing Counsel For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.19200 of 2021

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to settle the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., on the belated payment of terminal benefits such as provident fund Rs.77,912/-, gratuity Rs.3,38,503/-, backwages Rs.8,63,491/- from the date of retirement on 31.05.2016 till the date of settlement.

¶23

2.The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent Corporation. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.05.2016.

¶24

3.It is admitted that his terminal benefits were not settled immediately but only belatedly. The only question that arises for consideration is as regards the rate of interest payable on the belated settlement.

¶25

4.The issue raised in this Writ Petition was already decided by this Court vide order, dated 07.03.2023 in W.P(MD)No.4866 of 2023 (C.Murugan Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., & Another).

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.19200 of 2021

¶29

5.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents management to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for belated settlement of terminal benefits of the petitioner. The said exercise shall be done within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶30

04.06.2024

¶31

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mrn

¶32

¶33

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai – 16.

¶34

2.The General Manager,

¶35

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.

¶36

3.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.19200 of 2021

¶40

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶41

Mrn

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.19200 of 2021

¶43

04.06.2024

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Jothibasu.P v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jothibasu.P 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Revinraj Vs The Director of Town Panchayat

P.Subramaniam M/a Vs Idol Sri Arulmigukalyana Pasupatheeswaraswamy

Murugan.K Vs the Commissioner

Sundaralingam P Vs the Principal Account General (a and E)

Desingurajan.P Vs the Managing Director

Valli.M Vs the Commissioner