Disposed

S.Balachandran v. The Managing Director

Madras HC14 Mar 2025WP(MD)/6879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired employee sought direction for disbursement of difference in salary, gratuity, PF, pension arrears, and pension revision per the 2022 wage settlement. Court directed respondents to settle eligible terminal benefits with 6% interest within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to settle eligible terminal benefits and pension arrears with 6% interest within twelve weeks.

S.Balachandran Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

S.Balachandran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai,

¶11

Chennai – 2.

¶12

2.The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai,

¶13

Chennai 2.

¶14

3.The Administrator, State Express Transport Corporation Employees Pensions Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 2. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the petitioner's difference amount of Salary, gratuity, surrender leave, provident fund, pensions arrears and to revise pensions on the basis of 12 (3) settlement dated 24.08.2022 along with 6% interest.

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Senthil Kumar Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The instant writ petition has been filed by a retired employee of the respondent transport corporation, seeking a mandamus to disburse the petitioner's difference amount of Salary, gratuity, surrender leave, provident fund, pensions arrears and to revise pensions on the basis of 12 (3) settlement dated 24.08.2022 along with 6% interest.

¶22

2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the petitioner was joined in the respondent Transport Corporation on 01.09.1989, and he had attained superannuation on 31.05.2021. He further contended that the 14 th wage settlement was arrived on 24.08.2022. According to the petitioner, he is eligible to receive the said benefits and for revision of his pensionary benefits.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

¶26

3.The petitioner has sent representation to the said effect on 03.03.2025.

¶27

Since, there is no response from the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

4. Considering the above said facts, the respondents Transport Corporation are directed to settle the eligible terminal benefits to the writ petitioner along with 6% interest from the due date till the date of disbursement within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

5.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

No costs.

¶31

14.03.2025

¶32

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Sn

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

¶36

To:

¶37

1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai,

¶38

Chennai – 2.

¶39

2.The General Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 2.

¶40

3.The Administrator, State Express Transport Corporation Employees Pensions Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 2.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

¶44

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.6879 of 2025

¶47

14.03.2025

¶48

5/5

¶49

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

S.Balachandran v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balachandran v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Thirumavalavan Vs G.babu

P.Hari Subacini Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Parimalarkkan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Rathinam .R Vs The Principal Accountant General