Madras High Court
S.Girija vs The Managing Director on 2 March, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.22478 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Writ Petition (MD)No.22478 of 2016
S.Girija
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
Limited,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai 16.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
Limited,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul 4.
3.The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim
of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner's
daughter Mini Dalsia and for grant of family pension and other terminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.P.(MD).No.22478 of 2016
benefits, in view of the death of the petitioner's husband on 06.09.2015, in
terms of the Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees
Pension Fund Rules and in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.
2636 of 2001, dated 08.06.2010, which was confirmed by the Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.1188 of 2011, dated 26.11.2014, which was confirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLA(C)No.31558 of 2015, dated 26.10.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
Standing counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground
to the petitioner's daughter viz., Mini Dalsia and for grant of family pension and
other terminal benefits, in view of the death of the petitioner's husband on
06.09.2015, in terms of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Rules and in the light of the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.2636 of 2001, dated 08.06.2010, which was confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.1188 of 2011, dated 26.11.2014, which was
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLA(C)No.31558 of 2015, dated
26.10.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22478 of 2016
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as Bus
Body Cleaner on temporary basis in the respondent Corporation in the year
1988-1989 and his service was not regularised. Hence, he made a
representation to the respondents for regularisation of service under the
provisions of Conferment of Permanent Status Act. However, no step was taken
by the Corporation to regularise the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the
Union raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.69 of 1991 before the Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai, seeking for regularisation of 116 Bus Body Cleaners. After
contest, the Tribunal had passed an award dated 15.11.2000, directing the
respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner's husband. Aggrieved by
the said order of Labour Court, the respondent Corporation filed W.P.No.2636
of 2001 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 08.06.2010, dismissed the
writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order of this Court, the respondent
Corporation filed an appeal before this Court in W.A.(MD).No.1188 of 2011
and the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal, on 26.11.2014
and confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. As against the same, the
respondent Corporation has preferred an S.L.P.No.31558 of 2015 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the
order of this Court. In the mean while, the husband of the petitioner died on
06.09.2015. However, his service was not regularised and not complied with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22478 of 2016
the order of this Court. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation to the
second respondent on 07.10.2016, for granting family pension and other
terminal benefits. But, till date the said representation was not considered.
Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid
prayer.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
though the respondents filed a counter stating that there is no proof for the
petitioner's husband employment, the respondents themselves prepared the list,
in which, the name of the petitioner's husband was found in Serial No.41. Even
thereafter, the petitioner's representation was not considered. Hence, he prayed
for appropriate direction.
4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to consider the
petitioner's representation, in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above, this Court permits the petitioner to file a proof
for the petitioner's husband employment in the Corporation and if any such
proof is filed, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22478 of 2016
representation, dated 07.10.2016 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance
with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
02.03.2021
akv
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.
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
Limited,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai 16.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)
Limited,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.22478 of 2016
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
akv
3.The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 2.
Writ Petition (MD)No.22478 of 2016
02.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
