Partly allowed

Asokan A.S v. The General Manager

Madras HC25 Nov 2024WP(MD)/24632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged a post-retirement punishment order and withholding of pension/gratuity benefits. The High Court quashed the punishment order based on a settlement agreement and directed the release of withheld monetary benefits due to lack of government approval.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the punishment order under WP(MD)No.24893 of 2022; allowed WP(MD)No.24632 of 2022 and directed the respondent to settle the amount payable to the petitioner within eight weeks.

Asokan A.S Vs The General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.18993 of 2022

¶7

A.S.Asokan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd, Dindigul Region, Dindigul. ... Respondent in WP(MD)No.24893 of 2022

¶10

2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Employee's Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶11

...Respondents in WP(MD)No.24632 of 2022

¶12

PRAYER in WP(MD)No.24632 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the benefits of the petitioner namely gratuity and 25% of pension along with the arrears of the same from January, 2019 together with 18% interest p.a within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

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

¶14

1/8

¶15

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶16

PRAYER in WP(MD)No.24893 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent passed in reference LD 4 TN1807 dated 31.05.2022, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period from 06.01.2018 to 15.05.2018 as the working days of the petitioner in all respects and to give him all consequently / monetary benefits.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, in WP(MD)No.24893 of 2022 Mr.S.Ramachandran RR1&2 in WP(MD)No.24632 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner was a Senior Grade Tradesman in the respondent Transport Corporation and he has been allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018. He has filed WP(MD)No.24893 of 2022, challenging the order of punishment of fine of Rs.500/- and treating the suspension period as leave period on the ground that the punishment order has been passed without any authority, after his retirement. He has filed WP(MD)No.24632 of 2022 for a mandamus to the respondents to release the withheld monetary benefits due to the petitioner.

¶20

2/8

¶21

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

¶22

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶23

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with other employees had participated in the strike on 05.01.2018. Therefore, departmental proceedings was initiated as against this petitioner. Pending the departmental proceedings, he was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018. After the petitioner's retirement, order of punishment was passed, imposing a fine of Rs.500/- and treating the suspension period as eligible leave period, for having participated in the strike held on 05.01.2018. The criminal case registered as against the employees was quashed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2022 in CrlOP(MD)No.5099 of 2022.

¶24

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are not having any authority to impose punishment on the employee after his retirement. Therefore the punishment order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that since the punishment order was passed without any authority, withholding of the monetary benefits payable to the employee who had been allowed to retire on superannuation on 31.12.2018 is unsustaniable. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representation to the respondents to release all the monetary benefits to him and has approached this Court.

¶25

3/8

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶28

4.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the

¶29

petitioner and others had involved in the strike on 05.01.2018. The petitioner had prevented the other employees from doing their duty. Therefore, a criminal case was registered as against this petitioner and other employees. Simultaneously departmental proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo. The learned Counsel by referring to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules [TNSTC EPF Rules] submits that Rule 19(c) of the TNSTC EPF Rules enables the respondents to withhold the retirement benefits after an employee's retirement. According to him Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is applicable to the employees of the respondent Transport Corporation. The learned Counsel further submits that though a decision was taken in the Settlement not to impose punishment on the employees who have participated in the strike, it will not be applicable to the petitioner, since he had prevented others from discharging their duty and a criminal case has also been registered in this regard.

¶30

5.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶31

4/8

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶34

6.The petitioner an employee of the respondent transport corporation was allowed to retire on 31.12.2018. Admittedly this impugned order of punishment was passed on 31.05.2022, after his retirement. The learned Counsel for the respondents justified the order of punishment by referring to Rule 19(c) of the TNSTC EPF Rules, which reads as follows:

¶35

“Rule 19(c) Right of STUs/ TNSTC- EPFT to withhold or withdraw the pension after retirement.

¶36

(i) to withhold or withdraw of pension of employee of any category, after retirement, the provision of rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 should be followed.

¶37

(ii) withhold or withdraw of pension shall be effected after prior approval of government.

¶38

(iii)Competent Authority to withhold or withdraw pension for different categories of posts in the State Transport Undertaking:

¶39

S.	Category of posts in	the Competent
No	STVs	Authority
1	Senior Deputy Manager and Manager	Government
2	Assistant Manager & Deputy Manager	Managing Director

¶40

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

¶41

5/8

¶42

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶43

3 Below the level of Assistant General Manager Manager Posts and working group

¶44

7.The above rule enables the Corporation to initiate departmental

¶45

proceedings even after retirement, however any order of punishment of withhold or withdrawal of pension is permissible with the concurrence of the Government.

¶46

It appears that a decision has been taken by the respondent Corporation in the settlement arrived at on 24.08.2022 between Corporation and the trade unions to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated as against the employees who have participated in the strike in between 2011 and 2021 and to treat the suspension period and the absence period as duty period. In view of the settlement, the punishment imposed on petitioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly WP(MD)No.24893 of 2022 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

¶47

9.Further the respondents can only withhold the benefits only after

¶48

6/8

¶49

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

¶50

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶51

prior approval of the government as per Rule 19(c) of TNSTC EPF Rules. In this case no such prior approval has been obtained from the government. However it is reported that the respondent Corporation is withholding a portion of the monetary benefits due to the petitioner.

¶52

In view of the above discussion, WP(MD)No.24632 of 2022

¶53

is also allowed and the respondent is directed to settle the amount payable to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.11.2024

Internet : Yes / No

DSK

1.The General Manager,

¶59

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

¶60

2.The Administrator,

¶61

Tamil Nadu State Transport Employee's Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam,

¶62

Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

¶63

B.PUGALENDHI.J.,

¶64

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

¶65

7/8

¶66

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶67

DSK

¶68

WP(MD)Nos.24632 and 24893 of 2022

¶69

25.11.2024

¶70

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

¶71

8/8

Asokan A.S v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan A.S v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G.Kothainayagi Vs Chinnarani

S.Gunasekaran Vs Mahendra Kumar

Manjula Vs S.Karunakaran

Balasubramanian.R Vs the Commissioner

A.Elangovan Vs the Managing Director

M.Devaraj Vs the Director General of Police