Allowed¶37

P.Sankar (Deceased), v. The Management

Madras HC3 Feb 2025WP/17126/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

back wages; pension from April 2017; terminal benefits; terminal entitlements; dismissal; disciplinary proceedings; approval of dismissal; Assistant Commissioner of Labour; order of rejection; deemed retirement; superannuation; writ of mandamus; Article 226; legal heirs; impleadment; W.M.P. No. 23422 of 2022; W.P. No. 15485 of 2022; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited Kanchipuram Region; Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund; Madras High Court; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to sanction the terminal entitlements of the deceased first petitioner to the second to fourth petitioners and his other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with law; no costs. ¶37

P.Sankar (Deceased), Vs The Management — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to sanction the terminal entitlements of the deceased first petitioner to the second to fourth petitioners and his other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with law; no costs.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (the Transport Corporation and the Pension Fund Administrator) must pay the first petitioner's back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation, pension from April 2017 and other terminal benefits, in view of the dismissal of W.P. No. 15485 of 2022 upholding the Assistant Commissioner of Labour's denial of approval to the punishment of dismissal.

¶21

Court's answer

Since this Court dismissed W.P. No. 15485 of 2022 and upheld the Assistant Commissioner of Labour's denial of approval to the punishment of dismissal, the deceased first petitioner ought to have continued in service, attained the age of superannuation during April 2017 and is deemed to have retired from service.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Nothing prevents the respondents from paying the terminal benefits of the deceased first petitioner; it is obligatory on their part to issue appropriate proceedings and to sanction the terminal entitlements due to be paid to him.

¶36

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to sanction the terminal entitlements of the deceased first petitioner to the second to fourth petitioners and his other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with law, with no costs.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R.N. Manjula, J.) allowed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased employee of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, Kanchipuram Region, who had been dismissed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that in the companion matter W.P. No. 15485 of 2022 it had already dismissed the Corporation's challenge and upheld the Assistant Commissioner of Labour's denial of approval to the punishment of dismissal; consequently, the deceased first petitioner ought to have continued in service, attained the age of superannuation during April 2017 and stood deemed retired from service. Holding that nothing prevented the respondents from paying the terminal benefits and that it was obligatory on them to issue appropriate proceedings, the Court directed the respondents, including the Administrator of the Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund, to sanction the terminal entitlements of the deceased first petitioner to petitioners 2 to 4 and his other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with law. No costs.

¶1

W.P. No. 17126 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No. 17126 of 2018

¶7

P.Sankar (Deceased)

¶8

S.Santhi

¶9

S.Sangeetha

¶10

S.Vijay Bhaskar

¶11

… Petitioners

¶12

(P2 to P4 are impleaded vide order dated

¶13

22.09.2022 in W.M.P. No. 23422 of 2022)

¶14

-vs-

¶15

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited

¶16

Kanchipuram Region

¶17

Bangalore High Ways, Ponnerikarai Kanchipuram

¶18

Kanchipuram District.

¶19

The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Pallavan Salai

¶20

Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents

¶21

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation and pension from April 2017 and other terminal benefits to the petitioner.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. S.T.Varadarajulu

¶23

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

¶24

For Respondents : Mr. T.Chandrasekaran, Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶25

1/4

¶26

W.P. No. 17126 of 2018

¶27

Heard Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶28

In respect of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first petitioner, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the Transport Corporation to pay back wages from the date of the dismissal till the date of the superannuation and also accord pension from April 2017 and other terminal benefits.

¶29

Since the first petitioner has died after the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are impleaded as his legal heirs.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents had challenged the order of rejection passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour in W.P. No. 15485 of 2022 and only after the same is decided, the employee's entitlement to get all other terminal benefits can be decided.

¶31

In another writ petition in W.P. No. 15485 of 2022, which has also come

¶32

up along with this writ petition, this Court has passed a detailed order as to why the order of denial of approval to the punishment of dismissal passed by the

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Assistant Commissioner of Labour is right and dismissed that writ petition. In

¶34

2/4

¶35

W.P. No. 17126 of 2018

¶36

such case, it goes without saying that the deceased first petitioner ought to have continued in service and attained the age of superannuation during April 2017 and deemed to have retired from service. As nothing would prevent the respondents from supplying /paying the terminal benefits of the deceased first petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue appropriate proceedings in this regard and to sanction terminal entitlements due to be paid to the deceased first petitioner. As the first petitioner has died during the pendency of the writ proceeding, I feel that the respondents should not delay the disciplinary proceedings and to pass appropriate order.

¶37

In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to sanction the terminal entitlements of the deceased first petitioner to the second to fourth petitioners and his other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with law. No costs.

¶38

03.02.2025 (1/2)

¶39

Index: Yes/No Speaking order: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No Maya

¶40

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶41

Maya

¶42

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

¶43

3/4