C.Ponnambalam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2024 Latest Caselaw 19705 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19705 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 October, 2024

Madras High Court

C.Ponnambalam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 October, 2024

Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

                                                                         W.P.(MD)No.16309 of 2022

                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 21.10.2024

                                                   CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                          W.P.(MD)No.16309 of 2022
                                  and WMP (MD) Nos.11782 and 11783 of 2022


                     C.Ponnambalam                                            : Petitioner


                                                       Vs.
                     1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
                      Transport Department, Fort St. George,
                      Chennai - 600 009.

                     2.The Managing Director,
                       The Tamil Nadu State Transport
                       Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
                       Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

                     3.The General Manager,
                       The Tamil Nadu State Transport
                       Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited,
                       Trichy Region, Periyamilaguparai,
                       Trichirapalli District.                        : Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
                     entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 01.01.2022 in Ref.
                     TNSTC / KUM / TRY / DS / SM1 / 16193 / 2021 passed by the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                     1/7
                                                                           W.P.(MD)No.16309 of 2022

                     respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd
                     respondent to sanction surrender leave salary for 53 days to the petitioner
                     with the time limit that may be fixed by this Honourable Court.


                                  For Petitioner   : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
                                  For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
                                                     Government Advocate for R1
                                                     Mr.K.Jagadeesbalan
                                                     Standing Counsel for R2 and R3


                                                    ORDER

Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 01.01.2022

passed by the third respondent in Ref. TNSTC / KUM / TRY / DS /

SM1 / 16193 / 2021, the petitioner has come forward with the present

writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

appointed in the respondent Corporation on 25.01.1989 and attained

superannuation on 30.04.2020. The petitioner had submitted an

application for encashment of the surrender leave for the year 2011 to

2019 expecting that it will be sanctioned along with his retirement

benefits. However, the same was not sanctioned at the time of retirement https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of the petitioner. He further submitted that he is enttiled for sanction of

surrender leave salary for 53 days and in this regard, he has also made

representation to the respondent Corporation. Since it did not evoke any

response, the writ petitioner had filed W.P. (MD) No.16193 of 2021

before this Court and this Court by order dated 09.09.2021 directed the

third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to

pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment in W.A. (MD) No.

1138 of 2019.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third

respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.01.2021 stating

that they have already sanctioned a sum of Rs.4,59,664/- instead of Rs.

4,59,140/- and thereby, the third respondent had paid excess amount of

Rs.524/-. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been

filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. According to the petitioner, the respondent corporation

has to settle the surrender leave salary for 53 days to the petitioner. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a memo of calculation

dated 13.08.2024 wherein it is stated that the respondent corporation has

to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,509/- to the petitioner as the surrender leave

salary. However, as per the impugned order issued by the third

respondent, a sum of Rs.524/- has been paid to the petitioner as an excess

amount. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

gzp Xa;tpd; BghJ tHA;fg;gl Btz;oa tpLg;g[ rk;gsk; - ::Rs.302612/- (158 ehl;fs;) 2011 Kjy; 2019 tiuapyhd fhyj;jpw;Fhpa tpLg;g[ rk;gsk; - Rs.156528/- (135 ehl;fs;)

---------------------

                                                bkhj;jk;           Rs. 459140/-

                                  Vw;fdBt tHA;fg;gl;l bjhif       Rs. 459664/-
                                                              --------------------
                     jA;fSf;F mjpfkhf tHA;fg;gl;l bjhif           Rs. -524/-”
                                                              --------------------

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents 2 and 3 submitted that whatever the eligible amount payable

to the petitioner, the same will be paid in three installments to the

petitioner within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court, for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

which, the learned counsel for the petitioner is also agreed for the said

terms.

7. In the case on hand, according to the impugned order, the

petitioner was paid excess amount of Rs.524/- and the same will be

adjusted towards the interest for the belated payment of retirement

benefits. However, the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner shows

that he has to be paid Rs.1,01,509/- by the respondents 2 and 3.

8. Be that as it may. In view of the submission made by the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, the writ

petition is disposed of by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the

eligible surrender leave salary to the petitioner in three equal installments

and the first installment shall be paid on or before 10.11.2024 and the

subsequent two installments shall be paid on or before 10.12.2024 and

10.01.2025. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed. No costs.