Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs C.Subramaniam on 3 August, 2022
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
& C.M.P.No.12993 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Chennai Metropolitan Transport Corporation,
Pallavan House, Chennai-600 002. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.C.Subramaniam
2.The Secretary to Government,
Transport Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 12.12.2012 made in W.P.No.10655 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mrs.C.Sangamithirai
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 12.12.2012
recorded on W.P.No.10655 of 2009. This appeal is by the second
respondent in the writ petition – Management.
Page 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 5
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
writ petitioner was not entitled to relief as claimed by him. It is
indicated from the note submitted to the Court that, the date of
joining of service of the writ petitioner is 17.10.1971 and he
ultimately retired on 30th September 1993. In this intervening two
decades, the management had shifted him from one place to another
place. It is submitted that since the writ petitioner was short of few
months in getting the 10 years qualified service for getting pension
and other terminal dues, the direction by learned Single Judge is
unsustainable and needs to be interfered with. It is submitted that
this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and
having considered the material on record, we find that, entertaining
this appeal at this stage after about a decade against a workman who
has retired before about three decades and who had succeeded
before a decade, would result in miscarriage of justice. We have also
considered the reasons recorded by learned single Judge. We do not
find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
The writ appeal needs to be dismissed. It is further noted that,
during the course of hearing, attention of the Court is also invited to
Page 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 5
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
the subsequent proceedings instituted by the successful writ
petitioner in the form of W.P.No.5564 of 2022 wherein the
representation of the writ petitioner based on the order under
challenge in this appeal was requested to be accepted, which this
Court directed to be decided vide order dated 08.04.2022. On one
hand the Management does not comply with a decade old order and
it also does not effectively challenge it. This can not be permitted to
be taken advantage of by the management.
4. While dismissing this appeal, we also direct that the
benefits flowing from the order under challenge shall be calculated
and paid to the writ petitioner not later than 26th August 2022. We
make it clear that grant of this time, is in no way to be considered as
extension of time which was already stipulated by this Court at the
relevant time.
5. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
5.1 This appeal is dismissed.
5.2 The appellant / Management shall comply with the
Page 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 5
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
directions contained in the order under challenge as provided in para
: 4 above with clarification recorded thereat. Non-compliance of this
direction may also entail other legal consequences.
5.3 No costs. Civil miscellaneous petition would not survive.
6. List on 29.08.2022 ' for reporting compliance'.
(P.U.,J) (V.B.S.,J)
03.08.2022
raa/5
Page 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 5
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
raa
W.A.No.1770 of 2022
03.08.2022
Page 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of 5
