Madras High Court
S.Nithiyanantham vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport on 15 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
S.Nithiyanantham ... 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.,
Pudukottai Region,
Pudukottai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the
petitioner's surrender leave salary for 75 days of Rs.1,03,900/- for the
years 2011-2019 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum
from the date of retirement to till the date of disbursement within the
time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to direct the
respondents to pay his surrender leave salary for 75 days of
Rs.1,03,900/- for the years 2011-2019 together with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum from the date of retirement to till the date of
disbursement.
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.11865 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 and direct the appellants to settle the
petitioner's surrender leave salary. The appellant
Corporation resisted the claim by contending that even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
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.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
9.Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein
to settle the surrender leave salary for 75 days, in respect of the years
2011-2019 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 surrender leave salary in six Equal
Monthly Installments and the 1st Installment shall commence from 1st of
August, 2021.
10.This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
15.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
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.11865 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
To
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.,
Pudukottai Region,
Pudukottai.
W.P(MD)No.11865 of 2021
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
