Disposed¶46

B.Manoharan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC23 Jan 2025WP/31917/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retirement benefits; pension; gratuity; terminal benefits; voluntary retirement; No Due Certificate; withholding of pensionary benefits; recovery of dues; State Express Transport Corporation; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Trust Fund; Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation; driver; interest 12% p.a.; Article 226; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Letter No.030921/C5/SETC/2019 dated 7/9/2022; W.P.No.3262 of 2020; Madras High Court; W.P.No.31917 of 2022; decided 23/1/2025; Vivek Kumar Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to settle all the petitioner's retirement and pensionary benefits (gratuity, pension and other related benefits) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date due till disbursement, within one month; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

B.Manoharan Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent could withhold the petitioner's retirement and pensionary benefits (gratuity, pension and other related benefits) on the ground of alleged unpaid dues of Rs.17,841/- to the Corporation, notwithstanding that his resignation had been accepted based on a No Due Certificate, and whether the benefits ought to be settled with interest.

¶23

Court's answer

The petitioner's resignation was accepted based on a No Due Certificate, yet he was directed to pay Rs.17,841/- alleging dues under various heads; the respondents ought to have deducted such sum while disbursing his retirement and pensionary benefits instead of citing it as an impediment to processing his terminal benefits, which was highly discriminatory.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

On a bare perusal of the record, the respondents have purposefully withheld the petitioner's retirement and pensionary benefits from 2005 till date.

¶39

Key takeaways

The second respondent is directed to settle all the retirement and pensionary benefits, viz., gratuity, pension and other related benefits, which the petitioner is entitled to.ratio¶40
The settlement shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date the benefits fell due till the date of disbursement, and shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Vivek Kumar Singh, J.), W.P.No.31917 of 2022 with W.M.P.Nos.31352 and 31354 of 2022, decided 23/1/2025 — Retirement and pensionary benefits — Certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 — Petitioner, a Driver in Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation who proceeded on voluntary retirement (resignation accepted vide letter dated 2/8/2005; relieved on 11/7/2005) based on a No Due Certificate, was refused settlement of terminal benefits by the second respondent's Letter No.030921/C5/SETC/2019 dated 7/9/2022 on the ground of alleged dues of Rs.17,841/-. Held: the Corporation ought to have deducted any such dues while disbursing the retirement and pensionary benefits instead of citing them as an impediment, which was highly discriminatory; the respondents purposefully withheld the benefits from 2005 till date. Directed the second respondent to settle gratuity, pension and other related benefits with interest at 12% p.a. from the date due till disbursement, within one month. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 23/1/2025

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022 a n d

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.31352 and 31354 of 2022

B. Manoharan

... Petitioner

The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation No.2 Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai Chennai 2.

¶12

The Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resource Management) State Express Transport Corporation No.2 Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai

¶13

Chennai 2.

¶14

The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Trust Fund No.2 Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai Chennai 2. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶16

praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the

¶17

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

¶18

Page No:1/6

¶19

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022

¶20

records of the second respondent in Letter No.030921/C5/SETC/2019 dated 7/9/2022 quash the same and direct the respondents to settle all his retirement and pensionary benefits viz., gratuity, pension and other related benefits along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of its due and till date of disbursement, within a limited time frame.

¶21

For petitioner ... Mr.Venkataramani for Mr.M.Muthappan For respondents ... Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader for R.R.1 and 2. Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Standing Counsel for R.3 - - - - -

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 7/9/2022 passed by the second respondent in Letter No.030921/C5/SETC/2019 and direct the respondents to settle all his retirement and pensionary benefits viz., gratuity, pension and other related benefits along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of its due till the date of disbursement.

¶24

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

¶25

Page No:2/6

¶26

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022

¶27

The case of the petitioner in brief are as follows:-

¶28

The petitioner has entered the service of Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation as a Driver in August 1988. Due to family circumstances, petitioner has submitted his resignation letter for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the benign authority vide letter dated 2/8/2005. Following the acceptance, the Corporation is bound to settle the retirement benefits in full, instead directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/towards payment to Co-optex, Madras and Rs.17,841/ towards dues without any details. Hence, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 19/5/2006 with the details of payment made towards the sum of Rs.2,700/and sought details for the alleged excess payment. But the respondent has not sent any reply nor settled the benefits due to the petitioner. Even though the petitioner was making continuous representations from 2005 to 2019, there was no response from the respondents. Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.3262 of 2020 to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 7/12/2019. Vide, order dated 21/6/2022, this Court had directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and orders to be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the said order.

¶29

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

¶30

Page No:3/6

¶31

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022

¶32

Along with the copy of the abovesaid order, the petitioner had made a representation dated 19/8/2022 for which the second respondent issued the impugned order dated 7/9/2022 stating that the petitioner has not paid the dues to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.17,841/- and hence his claim could not be settled. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward with the instant writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

¶33

Heard Mr.Venkataramani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted no due certificates provided by all the Departments and also surrendered the Identity Card, Uniform, Shoes, etc., even before his resignation and the same were accepted. The recovery from the salary is one of the punishments and in the absence of any violation of Service Rules, amount cannot be recovered from the salary of the Government Servant.

¶35

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

¶36

Page No:4/6

¶37

Perused the materials available on record.

¶38

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022

¶39

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had entered the service of Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation as a Driver in the year 1988 and on voluntary retirement, he was relieved from service on 11/7/2005. It is to be noted that his resignation was accepted based on No Due Certificate submitted. But strangely, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,841/- alleging dues under various heads. The respondents ought to have deducted such sum while disbursing his retirement and pensionary benefits, instead of citing the same as an impediment to process his terminal benefits is highly discriminatory in nature. A bare perusal of the materials available on record, it could be deduced that the respondents have purposefully withheld the retirement and pensionary benefits of the petitioner from 2005 to till date.

¶40

In such a view of the matter, second respondent is directed to settle all the retirement and pensionary benefits, viz., gratuity, pension and other related benefits, which the petitioner is entitled to, along with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of its due till the date of disbursement, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

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

¶42

Page No:5/6

¶43

Writ Petition No.31917 of 2022

¶44

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,J

¶45

mvs.

¶46

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶47

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

23/1/2025

mvs.

Index: yes/No

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶52

¶53

The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation No.2 Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai Chennai 2.

¶54

The Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resource Management) State Express Transport Corporation No.2 Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai Chennai 2. 3. The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Trust Fund No.2 Tiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai Chennai 2.

¶55

W.P.No.31917 of 2022

¶56

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

¶57

Page No:6/6

B.Manoharan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Manoharan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indhumathi Vs the Commissioner of School Education

G.Umarani Vs the Chief Educational Officer

C.Marusamy Vs thiruvarampillai

S.Gunasekaran Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Dr.G.Senthil Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

B.Selvaraj Vs The Secretary to Government