Balasubramanian .P v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Sept 2025WP(MD)/22389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension arrears; difference of pension; wage settlement; retired Traffic Inspector; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited; TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust; Government of Tamil Nadu Transport Department; writ of mandamus; Article 226; fresh representation; consideration on merits; 18% interest per annum; Rs.26,350/- monthly pension; 1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019; disposal with directions; no costs; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with directions: Petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondents 2 and 4 within one month; respondents 2 and 4 to consider it and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter; no costs. ¶¶36

Balasubramanian .P Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 4 should be directed to sanction the arrears of difference of pension for a period of 30 months (1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019) to the Petitioner with 18% interest per annum. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

The Court directs the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondents 2 and 4 seeking sanction of the arrears amount of difference of pension for 30 months (1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019) with 18% interest per annum, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

On receipt of such a representation, respondents 2 and 4 are directed to consider the said representation and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The final orders on the representation are to be passed within a period of six weeks thereafter.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Abdul Quddhose J. — W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2022, decided 10.09.2025. A retired Traffic Inspector of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to sanction arrears of difference of pension for 30 months (1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019) with 18% interest per annum, his claim being that pursuant to wage settlement a sum of Rs.26,350/- towards monthly pension ought to have been sanctioned for that period. Without adjudicating entitlement, the Court directed the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondents 2 and 4 (the Managing Director, TNSTC (Tirunelveli) Limited, and the Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust) within one month, and directed those respondents to consider the representation and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter. Writ Petition disposed of with the aforesaid directions; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)NO.22389 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :10.09 .2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2022

¶7

P.Balasubramanian Son of A.Paramasivan, Traffic Inspector(Retired), Staff NO.3003, 1-B, Melapalayam North Rathaveethi, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District – 627 401.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

.Vs.

¶10

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

represented by its Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Managing Director,

¶14

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Tirunelveli)Limited, KTC Nagar, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

4.The Administrator,

¶16

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)NO.22389 of 2022

¶20

Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction the arrears amount of difference of pension for a period of 30 months namely from 1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019 to the Petitioner with 18% interest per annum within the time limit fixed by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.Prabaharan for M/s.Sudhagar Nagaraj For Respondent-1 : Mr.A.Baskaran Addl.Govt. Pleader For Respondents : Mr.D.Jebaraj 2 and 3 Standing Counselling For Respondent-4 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction the arrears amount of difference of pension for a period of 30 months from 1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019 to the Petitioner with 18% interest per

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)NO.22389 of 2022

¶29

annum.

¶30

2.The Petitioner claims that pursuant to wage settlement, the respondents ought to have sanctioned to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.26,350/- towards the monthly pension from 1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner will give a fresh representation to the respondents for the aforementioned purpose and a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that no prejudice will be caused if such a liberty is given to the Petitioner and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the said representation on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶31

3. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents 2 and 4 seeking sanction of arrears amount of difference of pension for a period of 30 months namely from 1.2.2017 to 30.7.2019 to the Petitioner with 18% interest per annum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such a representation, the respondents 2 and 4 are directed to consider the said representation and pass final orders on merits and in

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)NO.22389 of 2022

¶35

accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereaffter.

¶36

4.With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

10.09.2025

¶38

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

vsn

¶40

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶41

2.The Managing Director,

¶42

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Tirunelveli)Limited, KTC Nagar, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District.

¶43

4.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)NO.22389 of 2022

¶47

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J.

¶48

vsn

¶49

ORDER MADE IN

¶50

W.P(MD)No.22389 of 2022

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P(MD)NO.22389 of 2022

¶54

10.09.2025

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

Balasubramanian .P v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanian .P v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariraj R Vs the Director of Elementary Education

Ponnuchamy.P Vs The General Manager

Dhandapani.C. Vs The Registrar of Co-Operative Society

Parvatharajan.N Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Raj.K Vs The Secretary to Government

Backiyam.T Vs The Accountant General