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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

First respondent (Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.) directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2018 on merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks of receipt of copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment; terminal benefits already settled (admitted fact; counsel indicates settlement completed on 10.09.2024).

Issue for consideration

Whether the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner's deceased father, late S.S.Anbuselvam (conductor, service number 89 CR 232), would be disbursed by the respondents. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court records as an admitted fact that the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner's father have been settled by the respondents (consistent with counsel's indication of settlement on 10.09.2024).

Ratio / Principle

The Court records that the representation dated 30.08.2018 submitted by the writ petitioner remains pending before the respondents, and treats this as not in dispute - the factual predicate for issuing a directive rather than adjudicating.

Key takeaways

The Court directs the first respondent to consider the writ petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2018 on merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶29
The directive to consider the representation is to be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided there is no legal impediment (judgment drafts this as 'within if there is no legal impediment within a period of twelve weeks').ratio¶29
The Court expressly makes clear that it has not gone into (and has not adjudicated) the merits of the case; its intervention is confined to the directive to consider the representation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order (M. Jothiraman, J.), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019, disposed of on 24.03.2025 without costs. Petitioner A.Yogesh, son of late S.S.Anbuselvam (service no. 89 CR 232), a TNSTC (Kumbakonam) conductor who died in service on 21.07.2018, had sought by representation dated 30.08.2018 both compassionate-ground employment with the Corporation and disposal of his father's terminal benefits; the Corporation settled the PF employee contribution on 18.02.2019, and respondents' counsel later confirmed (on written instructions) that the terminal benefits were settled on 10.09.2024 while the compassionate-appointment request remained under consideration. Finding the benefit settlement an admitted fact and the representation still pending, the Court - expressly without going into the merits - directed the Managing Director (first respondent) to consider the representation dated 30.08.2018 on merits and in accordance with law within twelve weeks of receipt of copy of the order if there is no legal impediment. Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; no precedents cited.

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 24.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

A.Yogesh .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam-612 001, Thanjavur District. 2.The General Manager TNSTC (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam Divison, Kumbakonam 612 001, Thanjavur District. .. Respondents

Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner deceased father late S.S.Anbuselvam service number 89 CR 232 and give the petitioner an employment on compassionate grounds with the respondents corporation by considering his representation dated 30.8.2018.

Page 1 of 6

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

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed directing the respondents to disburse the terminal benefits payable to the deceased writ petitioner's father and also consider to provide compassionate appointment based on the representation dated 30.08.2018.

The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner's father was working as a conductor under the respondents. His father died on 21.07.2018. During the course of his employment due to massive hearf affack, the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.08.2018 along with all relevant particulars to the respondents, in which he sought for employment on compassionate grounds, he also requested the second respondent to dispose the terminal benefits of his deceased father having received the representation, the respondents vide its proceedings dated 18.02.2019 settled the employee contribution of provident fund to him. Thereafter he send a notice on 03.07.2019 through his Advocate for

_________Page 2 of 6

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

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

compassionate appointment. Hence, this writ petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on written instruction submits that on 10.09.2024, the terminal benefits payable to the deceased through late S.S.Anbuselvam has been settled and he would submit that the representation submitted by the writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment is under consideration of the respondents.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the terminal benefits payable to his father has been received and the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment is pending with the Corporation and prayed to issue a direction to consider the same.

This Court considered the submission made on either side and perused the available records.

It is an admitted fact that the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner's father has been settled by the respondents. It is not in

_________Page 3 of 6

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

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

dispute that the representation dated 30.08.2018 submitted by the writ petitioner is still pending before the respondents, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner dated 30.08.2018 on merits and in accordance with law within if there is no legal impediment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

With the above observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed off. No costs.

24.03.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes nst

_________Page 4 of 6

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

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

To

1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam-612 001, Thanjavur District.

2.The General Manager TNSTC (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam Divison, Kumbakonam 612 001, Thanjavur District.

_________Page 5 of 6

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

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

nst

WP(MD) No.24713 of 2019

Dated: 24.03.2025

_________Page 6 of 6

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