Disposed

Natarajan.T v. the Managing Director

Madras HC11 Sept 2025WP(MD)/730/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bus corporation employee sought mandamus to treat 26-29 November 2021 as duty period and restore salary reduced for December 2021 after alleged absence. Court directed him to submit a fresh representation and the third respondent to decide it with a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within one week; third respondent to decide on merits with personal hearing within eight weeks. No costs.

Natarajan.T Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

T.Natarajan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation Pallavan Street, Chennai-2

¶11

2.The General Manager (Administration) State Express Transport Corporation Pallavan Street, Chennai-600 002

¶12

3.The Branch Manager

¶13

State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Kanyakumari Branch, Kanyakumari Kanyakumari District ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to treat the period from 26.11.2021 to 29.11.2021 as the duty period and consequently to rectify the reduction in salary of the petitioner for the month of December 2021.

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh Standing Counsel for R1 No appearance for R2 & R3

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the third respondent to treat the period from 26.11.2021 to 29.11.2021 as duty period and consequently to rectify the reduction in salary of the petitioner for the month of December 2021.

¶21

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. They would contend that the petitioner did not turn up for duty from 25.11.2021 till 30.11.2021.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if a personal hearing is granted to the petitioner, he will be able to establish that he had reported for duty on all the dates, namely, from 26.11.2021 till 29.11.2021.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

¶26

4. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representation seeking to treat the period from 26.11.2021 to 29.11.2021 as duty period and to rectify the reduction in salary of the petitioner for the month of December 2021, is considered on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner by the third respondent.

¶27

5. Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the third respondent requesting him to treat the period from 26.11.2021 to 29.11.2021 as duty period and to rectify the reduction in his salary for the month of December 2021, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation within the stipulated time, the third respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶28

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

¶31

6. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

11.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶34

krk

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

¶38

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶39

krk

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.730 of 2022

¶41

11.09.2025

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶43

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

Natarajan.T v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan.T 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

Balasubramanian .P Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Parvatharajan.N Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Raj.K Vs The Secretary to Government

Ramasamy S Vs the Director of Elementary Education

Pandimuni P Vs the Chairman

Kaliappan.G Vs the State of Tamilnadu