Madras High Court
S.Mohamed Nazeer vs The Managing Director on 5 May, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.05.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
S.Mohamed Nazeer ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kum) Limited,
TNSTC Head Office,
No.27, Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam 612 001. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
disburse the earned leave salary for 57 days surrendered by the petitioner,
together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the
petitioner's retirement to till the date of actual payment by the
respondent, by considering the petitioner's representation dated
22.05.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Vijay Nivas
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sivaraman
Standing Counsel
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondent to settle the petitioner's surrender leave salary
for 57 days 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.SP.Vijay Nivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
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
respondent has not settled the surrender leave salary and therefore, he
claims the disbursement of the same together with interest.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is covered by various orders of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
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.D.Sivaraman, 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
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 respondent herein to
settle the surrender leave salary for 57 days in respect of the years 2011
to 2016 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the
petitioner from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement.
The respondent shall be entitled to disburse the surrender leave salary in
six Equal Monthly Installments and the 1st Installment shall commence
from 1st June, 2021.
10.This writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 05.05.2021
Internet : Yes / No
mm/cmr
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.9369 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH, J.
mm/cmr
W.P.(MD) No.9369 of 2021
05.05.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
