Madras High Court
M.Ramaiyan vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport on 9 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
M.Ramaiyan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Kumbakonam.
2.The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Region,
Kumbakonam. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
pay the petitioner's surrender leave salary for 120 days of
Rs.1,72,800/- for the years 2011-2018 together with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from the date of retirement to till the date
of disbursement.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Sivaraman
Standing Counsel for TNSTC
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the
respondents to pay the petitioner's surrender leave salary for 120
days of Rs.1,72,800/- for the years 2011-2018 together with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum payable from the date of
retirement to till the date of disbursement within the time that may
be stipulated by this Court.
2.Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.D.Sivaraman, 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 surrender leave salary and
therefore, he claims the disbursement of the same together with
interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
filed W.P(MD).No.2449 of 2018 praying
for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to quash the order dated 21.12.2017
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
7.At this juncture, Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents 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.
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 surrender leave salary for 120 days, in respect
of the years 2011-2018, together with interest at the rate of 6%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual
disbursement. The respondents shall be entitled to disburse the
surrender leave salary in six Equal Monthly Installments and the 1 st
Installment shall commence from 1st of September 2021.
10.This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am 09.07.2021
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.,
am
W.P.(MD)No.11442 of 2021
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
