K.Rajapandian v. M/S.State Express Transport Corproaiton
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.Rajapandian ... Petitioner Vs.
1.M/s.State Express Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Rep by its Administrator, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to settle a sum of Rs.57,648/- towards difference in 6% interest for the belated settlement of terminal benefits to the petitioner herein, by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 16.06.2025 and 26.06.2025. 1/5
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Soundar Raj For Respondents : Mr.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.C.S.K.Satish Standing Counsel for R2
O R D E R
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to settle a sum of Rs.57,648/- towards difference in 6% interest for the belated settlement of terminal benefits to the petitioner herein, by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 16.06.2025 and 26.06.2025.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had retired from the service of the respondents corporation on 31.05.2024, and made a representations dated 16.06.2025 and 26.06.2025 to the respondents seeking interest for the belated payment of the terminal benefits, there was no response for the same.
3. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the 2/5
first respondent would submit that the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner in Cont.P.No.1044 of 2025 in W.P.No.26915 of 2025 was closed, vide order dated 03.06.2025, resulting in the full discharge of the interest. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for interest. Though he would raise objections, and would state that the mere closure of contempt proceedings has to be construed as full satisfaction, would fairly submit that if there is any representation yet to be considered, they will consider the same within a reasonable time.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. In view of the above submission, without going into the merits of this Writ Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 16.06.2025 and 26.06.2025, and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3/5
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
10.07.2025 (2/2) jas Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order To 1.M/s.State Express Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2.M/s.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Rep by its Administrator, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
4/5
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
jas 10.07.2025 (2/2) 5/5