V.Kothandaraman v. M/S Metropolitan Transport Corproation
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.V.Kothandaraman 2.J.Ibrahim ... Petitioners Vs.
M/S METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO 1, PALLAVAN SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002 ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to settle 10 percent difference in Dearness Allowance to the 1st petitioner herein and to pay the difference in Medical Leave Salary to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein with 6 percent interest in view of G.O (Ms) No. 220, Transport (C1) Department dated 06.08.1999 and in the light of the orders passed by this 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 by considering the representation of the 1st petitioner herein dated 18.10.2025 and representation of the 2nd petitioner herein dated 03.07.2025 For Petitioners : Mr.D.Soundar Raj For Respondent : Mr.A.Vinothraj, Standing Counsel 1/6
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondent herein to settle 10 percent difference in Dearness Allowance to the 1st petitioner herein and to pay the difference in Medical Leave Salary to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein with 6 percent interest in view of G.O (Ms) No. 220, Transport (C1) Department dated 06.08.1999 and in the light of the orders passed by this 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 by considering the representation of the 1st petitioner herein dated 18.10.2025 and representation of the 2nd petitioner herein dated 03.07.2025
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the retired employees of the Respondent/Corporation. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent has to pay 10 percent difference in Dearness Allowance to the 1st petitioner herein and to pay the difference in Medical Leave Salary to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein with 6 percent interest in view of G.O (Ms) No. 220, Transport (C1) Department dated 06.08.1999 and in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) no.14520 of 2020 dated 21.03.2023, W.P.No 29602, 29604, 29606 and 29609 of 2023 2/6
dated 12.10.2023. Hence, the petitioners made representations to the respondent. However, no action has been taken by the respondent till date. Hence this petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it would be suffice if this Court issues a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners' representations and pass orders.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the representations of the petitioners will be considered and the respondent will pay the eligible amount with applicable interest.
5. Considering the facts of the case, this Court directs the respondent to consider the representation of the 1st petitioner dated 18.10.2025 and the representation of the 2nd petitioner dated 03.07.2025 in view of G.O (Ms) No. 220, Transport (C1) Department dated 06.08.1999 and in the light of the orders passed by this 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 to pass orders on the claim 3/6
made by the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
14.11.2025 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok 4/6
To M/S METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO 1, PALLAVAN SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002 5/6
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok 14.11.2025 (2/2) 6/6