Disposed¶19

P. Rajasekaran v. the General Manager

Madras HC6 Feb 2026WP/3230/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 mandamus; retiral/pensionary benefits; difference in leave salary; difference in gratuity; 14th wage settlement dated 24.08.2022; wage revision effective 01.09.2019; retired employee; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Kanchipuram Region; time-bound direction (eight weeks); interest at 6% per annum; disposed by consent at admission; Madras High Court; WP No. 3230 of 2026; M.Dhandapani, J.

What did the court decide?

By consent, at the admission stage, the respondent is to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within eight (8) weeks regarding payment of difference in leave salary and gratuity as per the 14th wage settlement, with interest at 6% per annum on the benefits to which the petitioner is entitled (10% interest as prayed was not granted). No costs. ¶19

P. Rajasekaran Vs the General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 3230 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

WP No. 3230 of 2026

P.Rajasekaran

..Petitioner(s)

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Kanchipuram Region, Chennai-Bangalore Highways, Karapetti, Kanchipuram – 631 552.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the difference in leave salary and difference in gratuity with 10% interest as per 14^th wage settlement dated 24.08.2022 to the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Karkivelan For Respondent(s) : Ms.S.Pavithra

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to pay the difference in leave salary and difference in gratuity as per 14^th wage settlement dated 24.08.2022 with 10% interest to the petitioners.

¶16

__________Page 1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 3230 of 2026

¶19

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was retired from the respondent corporation in the year 2020. The 14^th wage settlement was arrived belatedly on 24.08.2022. But the wage revision was given effect from 01.09.2019. However, the said benefits were not extended to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has sent a representation seeking difference in leave salary and gratuity, as per 14^th wage settlement with 10% interest. But, the said representation was not considered, as on date. Hence, this writ petition.

¶21

Though many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the respondent to pay the difference in leave salary and gratuity along with interest, as per 14^th wage settlement.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner’s claim will be considered by the respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

__________Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 3230 of 2026

¶27

Considering the relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with regard to payment of difference in leave salary and gratuity, as per 14^th wage settlement. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be paid interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the benefits to which he is entitled to.

¶29

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶30

costs.

¶31

06.02.2026

¶32

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vm

¶33

__________Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

WP No. 3230 of 2026

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

To:

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Kanchipuram Region, Chennai-Bangalore Highways, Karapetti, Kanchipuram – 631 552.

¶40

WP No. 3230 of 2026

¶41

06.02.2026

¶42

__________Page 4 of 4

¶43

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

P. Rajasekaran v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Rajasekaran v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sindhu Vs the Personal Secretary to Government

M.Swaminathan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

V.Muniyandi Vs the Principal Chief Conservator

Dr. S. Vimala Vs union of Territory of Puducherry, rep by

M. Moorthy Vs the General Manager

B.Reziyabee Vs the State of Tamil Nadu