Madras High Court
N.Sankar (Deceased) vs Tamilnadu State Transport on 26 October, 2022
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.N.Sankar (Deceased)
2.Rani
3.Kumaran
4.Sumathi
(P2 to P4 substituted as LRs of deceased
sole petitioner vide order dated 12.07.2022
in WMP.No.31371/2016 in WP.No.19036/2014) ...Petitioners
Vs
1.Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
3/137, Salaamedu, Vazahudhareddy,
Villupuram - 605 602.
2.The General Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Bye-Pass road (Vengikkal),
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
Thiruvannamalai.
3.Tamilnadu State Transport
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Rep. by its Administrator,
Thiruvalluvar Illam,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the
respondents in insisting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.99,919/- towards
unimplemented punishments of increment cut, imposed on the petitioner and
also in refusing to settle him the arrears of pension and other terminal benefits
on the ground that he did not pay the said amount of Rs.99,919/- as illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to
settle the petitioner forthwith the arrears of pension for 18 months, commuted
value of pension, gratuity and the amounts payable under Employees Welfare
Scheme and other terminal benefits, together with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Aswin
For R3 : Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
ORDER
Heard Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel for the first and second respondents and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the third respondent.
2. The original petitioner, who was an employee under the respondent
Corporation, had expired pending the Writ Petition and the petitioners 2 to 4,
who are the legal heirs, have been substituted.
3. When the said employee had reached the age of superannuation, a
sum of Rs.99,919/-, towards the monetary value of his unimplemented
punishments, was withheld. When the late employee had sought for
information with regard to such withholding of death-cum-retirement gratuity
benefits, the respondent Corporation, in their reply dated 19.03.2014, had
stated that since the value of the unimplemented punishments has not been
repaid by the petitioner, the same has been withheld and that the benefits
would be paid only after this amount is settled.
4. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
subsequently, the legal heirs of the late employee have been paid with the
death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits, after deducting the sum of Rs.99,919/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
and they are also now receiving the family pension.
5. The reason assigned by the respondent Corporation for withholding
the death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits, that the monetary value of the
unimplemented punishments are yet to be recovered from the late employee, is
illegal, in view of various decisions of this Court, in which, it has been held
that, withholding of the monetary benefits to a retired employee, on the ground
that certain punishments have not been implemented, is illegal. In one such
decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State
Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd., and others Vs. G.Senthil
and another passed in W.A.(MD) No.1270 of 2020, dated 15.06.2021, it has
been held in the following manner:-
"9. Furthermore, the question as to whether the
Management would be entitled to implement orders of
postponement of increment, which was not implemented
during the period when the workman was in service, was
also considered in the case of J.Arumugam (supra) and
it was held that the same cannot be done and it will be
without jurisdiction. The operative portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
"37. One more important aspect, which we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
wish to point out is that, the Management cannot
plead ignorance of the fact that, on the date, when
punishment was imposed on the workmen, the
punishment was not capable of being implemented
as workmen did not have the required remaining
years of service. If that is so, the Management
cannot take shelter under the explanation contained
Clause 4 (1) (e) to suit its own convenience, and the
workmen cannot be put in a disadvantageous
position. In such circumstances, the Management
cannot rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kshetrabasi Mohanti (supra) where, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the correctness
of the order by substituting the punishment for a
candidate, who was still in service. There, it was a
case, where, it was not possible for the Corporation
to implement the punishment, but, the case on hand,
is a case, where, the Corporation was fully aware of
remaining years of service in respect of each of the
workmen, yet, chose to pass such orders of
recovery. Thus, the Management, having failed to
convert the punishment of stoppage of increment to
that of order of recovery of monetary value, when
the workmen were in service, it cannot turn around
and say that those orders could be implemented by
invoking Clause 25 (iv) (b) of the Certified Standing
Orders."
10. In the light of the above legal principle and
having found that there is no provision in the Certified
Standing Orders to pass orders of recovery at the verge
of retirement or after retirement proposing to recover the
unimplemented orders of punishment of postponement of
increment, is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence, for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
reasons set out by the learned Single Bench as well as
the reasons which we have observed supra, the order
passed in the writ petition does not call for interference.
The learned Single Bench has allowed the writ petition
as prayed for, which would mean that the respondent
workman is also entitled to claim interest at 18% per
annum. In our considered view, 18% interest would be
too exorbitant and we are of the view that a time frame
can be fixed for the respondent-Management to settle the
amount of Rs.75,900/- and accordingly directed to pay
the said sum within a period of 12 weeks, failing which,
the Management is directed to settle the amount together
with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of order passed in the writ petition, namely,
28.07.2020, till the claim is settled."
6. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the decision of the
Transport Corporation to withhold the death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits,
on the ground that the value of the unimplemented punishments have not been
recovered, cannot be sustained. Since the action taken by the respondent
Corporation is illegal, the family of the late employee would be entitled for
payment of interest. In the aforesaid decision in G.Senthil, the interest of 18%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
ordered by the learned single Judge, has been reduced to 6% and this Court is
of the view that a similar percentage of interest can be adopted for the present
case also.
7. By adopting the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench
in G.Senthil's case (supra), the action of the respondents in withholding a sum
of Rs.99,919/-, is hereby declared as illegal. Consequently, there shall be a
direction to the respondents to forthwith pay the sum of Rs.99,919/- to the
petitioners 2 to 4 herein, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum,
along with any other monetary benefits payable to the late employee, from the
date of superannuation of the late employee, i.e. 29.02.2012, till the date of
disbursal, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.10.2022
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
3/137, Salaamedu, Vazahudhareddy,
Villupuram - 605 602.
2.The General Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Bye-Pass road (Vengikkal),
Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Administrator,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Thiruvalluvar Illam,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 2.
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19036 of 2014
26.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
