Dismissed¶54

The Managing Director v. T.Ramesh

Madras HC15 Apr 2026WA(MD)/105/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TNSTC Madurai/Dindigul writ appeal against Single Judge order directing settlement of VRS compensation with interest to T.Ramesh dismissed (15.04.2026, Madurai Bench; N.Sathish Kumar & P.B.Balaji JJ.) in view of earlier decision W.A.(MD)No.1489 of 2025 (17.06.2025); per that decision, VRS compensation under G.O.(Ms).No.2010 dated 03.11.1987 is payable to all voluntary retirees, with no supervisory-cadre exclusion and independent of any 12(3) settlement.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the learned Single Judge's order allowing settlement of the voluntary retirement compensation with interest to the respondent stands and the writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶54

The Managing Director Vs T.Ramesh — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.1110 of 2026

¶8

1.The Managing Director,

¶9

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Madurai Division, Bye pass Road, Madurai-625 016.

¶10

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Dindigul Region, Chettiayanakkanpatti Post, Dindigul-624 005.

¶11

...Appellants

¶12

Vs.

¶13

T.Ramesh ...Respondent

¶14

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.11821 of 2025 on the file of this Court dated 25.04.2025.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.SC.Herold Singh For Respondent : Mr.S.Govindan for Mr.A.K.Thangavelu

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶21

The writ petition seeking to settle the voluntary retirement compensation amount payable to the writ petitioner together with interest, came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the said order the Corporation has filed the present writ appeal.

¶22

2.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue raised in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1489 of 2025 vide judgment dated 17.06.2025. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:

¶23

“ 2.The first respondent herein joined the service of the management of the appellant corporation as Junior Engineer in the year 1987. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer and then as Senior Assistant Engineer. He took voluntarily retirement with effect from 31.10.2022. The only question that is the subject matter of the dispute is whether the employee / writ petitioner herein is entitled to what is called as 'VRS compensation'. The management took the stand that since the writ petitioner comes under supervisory category, he is not entitled to such compensation. The management would also

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026

¶27

add that VRS compensation is a creature of a 12(3) settlement and that those employees who are not covered by the said 12(3) settlement cannot claim VRS compensation. The writ petitioner therefore filed W.P(MD)No.15712 of 2023 and the learned single Judge vide order dated 14.08.2023 allowed the writ petition.

¶28

3.Before us, the learned Standing Counsel for the corporation reiterated the objections.

¶29

4.We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, VRS compensation is paid more pursuant to G.O(Ms)No.2010 Transport Department dated 03.11.1987. For easy reference the entire GO is extracted below:

¶30

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

¶31

ABSTRACT

¶32

STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS - Special Scheme for Voluntary Retirement of employees for undertakings- Approval - Orders - Issued.

¶33

c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c

¶34

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

¶35

G.O.(Ms).No.2010 Dated: the 3rd Nov.-87

¶36

Prabhava, Iyppasi 17, Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2018

¶37

O R D E R:

¶38

The proposal to evolve a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the staff of Transport Corporations has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time. When different Corporations brought up the issue before the respective Board of Directors, it was felt that it would be

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026

¶42

better to evolve a Common Scheme applicable to all the Corporations. Honourable Minister for Transport has also made an announcement on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on 6.4.87 that a Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be evolved for the staff of Transport Corporation.

¶43

2. The Voluntary Retirement scheme is applicable to persons of 50 years of age and 20 years of service. However, the Board can relax this in special and deserving cases, particularly in respect of drivers. For every year of service left for the retiring personnel, a lump sum of Rs.5000/- per year will be paid.

¶44

3. After discussion of several -All Managing Directors- meetings and after careful examination, the Government approve the Scheme for Voluntary Retirement of employees of State Transport undertakings appended to this order with immediate effect.

¶45

4. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department -vide its U.O.No.4657/FS/P/87, dated 07.10.1987.

¶46

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

¶47

A.K.VENKARSUBRAMANIAN,

¶48

COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT”

¶49

A mere look at the abstract of the GO would show that it is a special scheme for voluntarily retirement of employees of State Transport undertaking. It does not make any distinction between supervisory cadre and non-supervisory cadre. It also does not make any reference to any 12(3) settlement. Therefore, we have to necessarily hold that VRS compensation has to be paid to all the employees taking voluntary retirement. In this view of the matter, we decline to interfere. We hold that the writ petitioner is entitled to VRS compensation and the same shall be computed as per the applicable position.

¶50

4/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026

¶53

5.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶54

3.In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

[N.S.K., J.] & [P.B.B., J.] 15.04.2026

¶56

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta

¶57

5/6

¶58

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

¶59

W.A.(MD)No.105 of 2026

¶60

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND P.B.BALAJI, J.