T.Anusuya v. M/S.Metropolitan Transport Corporation,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.

T.Anusuya 2.

G.Sathiya Narayanan ... Petitioners Vs.

M/s.Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, No.1, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for an issuance of writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent herein to settle the difference in Medical Leave Salary for 173 days to the 1st petitioner herein and 163.5 days Medical Leave Salary to the 2nd petitioner herein, in view of G.O.(Ms) No.220, Transport (C1) Department dated 6/08/1999 and in the light of the orders passed by this Honorable court in W.P.(MD) No.14520 of 2020 dated 21/03/2023, W.P.No.29602, 29604, 29606 and 29609 of 2023 dated 12/10/2023 and in W.P.No.2176 of 2024 dated 02/02/2024 and by considering the representations of the petitioners dated 16/03/2024 and 16/04/2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Soundar Raj For Respondents : Mr.R.Balaji Standing Counsel for MTC

ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 16.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 and to settle the difference in medical leave salary of the petitioners.

2.

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed in the respondent Corporation and retired from service during the year 2013 and 2019 respectively. The medical leave earned in their service prior to 1998 was available in their credit. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.220 dated 06.08.1999 directing the Transport Corporation to settle the leave salary for the remaining medical leave at the time of retirement of employees which is in their credit before 01.09.1998 by taking the pay and dearness allowance for calculation of leave salary at the time of their retirement. However, the respondent paid the leave salary by taking the pay and dearness allowance which was received during 1998. Therefore, the petitioners have

sent their representation and were not considered till date. Hence the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that claiming difference in medical leave salary, the petitioners have given their representation dated 16.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 and the same were not disposed of.

4.

However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation would strongly object the claim of the petitioners and would contend that the petitioners retired from service during 2013 and 2019 respectively and with a long delay, the petitioners have sent their representation, so as to create a new cause of action. 5.

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 6.

Since the petitioners have come up with the limited prayer to consider their representation, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the abovesaid

representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on its own merits and in accordance with law. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

05.06.2025 (2/2) veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To M/s.Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, No.1, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

veda 05.06.2025 (2/2)