Madras High Court
N.Chidambaranathan vs The Managing Director on 23 February, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
N.Chidambaranathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam Limited,
27, New Railway Station Road,
Kumbakonam – 612 001.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Kumbakonam Limited, Kumbakonam Region,
Kumbakonam – 612 001. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's
earned leave salary for 45 days in respect of the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013,
2013-2014, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from
the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Royce Immanuel
For Respondents : Mr.P.Balasubramanian,
Standing Counsel
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's earned leave salary for 45
days in respect of the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, together with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of retirement to till
the date of actual payment.
2.Heard Mr.S.Royce Immanuel, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.P.Balasubramanian, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents.
3.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that after his retirement, the
respondents have not settled the earned leave salary and therefore, he claims
the disbursement of the same together with interest.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the issue involved in
the present writ petition is covered by various orders of this Court, including
the order, dated 13.12.2019, passed in the case of S.Alagesan Vs. The
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd., and another in W.P.(MD).No.26487 of 2019. The
relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“4. An identical issue came up for consideration
before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)
No.210 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Division Bench by
judgment dated 04.09.2019 had upheld the view of
the learned Single Judge against which the writ
petition came to be filed and also rejected the
Corporation plea that the employee had not claimed
the encashment of the surrender leave within the
stipulated time. The relevant portion of the said
order reads as follows:-
'2. This appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu
State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam
Division. The respondent filed W.P(MD).No.2449
of 2018 praying for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the order dated 21.12.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
and direct the appellants to settle the petitioner's
surrender leave salary. The appellant
Corporation resisted the claim by contending that
even though as per the settlement entered into
under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act,
the employee is entitled for surrendering and
encashing 15 days in one year or 30 days in two
years, the same has not been done by the writ
petitioner during his service during 2011-2014
and after superannuation only in the year 2016,
he has made a claim of surrender of earn leave,
based on the circular issued by the appellant
Corporation, dated 09.01.2017. Further, it is
submitted that the circular is not meant for
enabling the retired employees to renew their
claim of surrendering their earned leave of 15
days in a year during the service i.e., between
2011-2014 and it is applicable only for existing
employees. Therefore, it is submitted that the
respondent/writ petitioner cannot lay his claim
based upon the circular, dated 09.01.2017.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner submitted that though
the petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2016, from
the year 2011 onwards, the said practice of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
surrendering 15 days or 50% of the earn leave per
year was done away by the appellants
Corporation on account of financial crises.
Further, the action based on the settlement entered
into under Section 12(3) of the Act was not
available to the respondent/writ petitioner,
because the appellants Transport Corporation is
citing financial crisis. The learned Single Judge
took into consideration the facts placed before
him and also noted the circular dated 09.01.2017
and taking note of the fact that there is record to
show that the appellants transport corporation
pleaded financial crises for non-settling the
surrender leave salary, allowed the writ petition.
4.While doing so, the Writ Court referred to
an earlier order in the case of A.Sundararajan
Vs., Tamil Nadu State of Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam Limited) [W.P(MD).No.24245 of
2016 etc batch], wherein similar relief sought for
has been granted and the writ petitions were
allowed and the appellants Transport Corporation
was directed to implement the same. Thus in our
considered view, the learned Single Judge has
rightly gone into the factual position and took
note of stand of the appellants corporation as to
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
why earlier they did not permit surrender and
allowed the writ petition. Therefore, we find that
the appellants have not made out any ground to
interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.'
5. In the light of the above, this Court
is of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to
claim salary for the surrendered leave.”
6.In view of the aforesaid decision being in favour of the petitioner, this
Court is also of the view that the petitioner herein is entitled to succeed in the
present writ petition.
7.At this juncture, Mr.P.Balasubramanian, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent Corporation submitted that the Division Bench
of this Court as well as the learned Single Judges of this Court in many cases
have ordered for payment of earned leave salary, but have not granted interest
and therefore, he submitted that the interest need not be paid for non surrender
of earned leave.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
8.In all the decisions cited by the learned Standing Counsel, both the
Division Bench, as well as the learned Single Judges, there is no discussion
with regard to the non entitlement of the interest. Since there is no dictum laid
down in any of the decisions to the effect that the employees will not be
entitled for interest on belated payment of earned leave, I am unable to accept
these submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel.
9.Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to
settle the earned leave salary for 45 days, in respect of the years 2011-2012,
2012-2013, 2013-2014, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement. The
respondents shall be entitled to disburse the earned leave salary in six Equal
Monthly Installments and the 1st Installment shall commence from 1st of March
2021.
10.This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
23.02.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH,J.
TM
Note: In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate/litigant concerned.
W.P.(MD) No.3382 of 2021
23.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
