Subramanian T v. The Management Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI T.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Management Of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Trichy Region, Rep. by its Managing Director, Trichy.
2. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the pension benefits of the petitioner, namely Commuted Value of Pension and monthly pension from October, 2013 under TNSTCE Pension Fund Rules by taking his scale of pay on the month of his retirement i.e., September, 2013 as Rs.13,465/- as admitted by the 1st respondent before the Labour Court, Trichy in C.P.No.1/20 and also by counting his pensionable 1/7
service period as 26 years and to pay him revised monthly pension, along with difference/arrears of Commuted Value of Pension and monthly pension for the period from October, 2013 together with 18% interest per annum, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah (R1) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (R2) Standing Counsels
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to revise the pension benefits of the petitioner, namely, Commuted Value of Pension and monthly pension from October, 2013 under TNSTCE Pension Fund Rules by taking his scale of pay on the month of his retirement i.e., September, 2013 as Rs.13,465/- as admitted by the 1st respondent before the Labour Court, Trichy in C.P.No.1/20 and also by counting his pensionable service period as 26 years and to pay him revised monthly pension, along with difference/arrears of Commuted Value of Pension and monthly pension for the period from October, 2013 together with 18% interest per annum, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2/7
2.By consent of both parties and considering the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.
4.(i).From 26.06.1987, the petitioner was employed as Driver in the respondent Corporation and he retired from service on 30.09.2013. Though his teriminal benefits were settled with a delay of two years, the respondents have not settled the same correctly. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for revision of pension benefits.
(ii).While he was in service, he was imposed with a punishment of increment cut with cumulative effect for two years by the first respondent vide order, dated 13.01.2003. It was challenged by his Union in I.D.No.124 of 2009, in which, the punishment was modified to one year increment cut with cumulative effect vide Award, dated 30.05.2017. Since the first respondent did 3/7
not challenge the said Award, it attained its finality. However, the first respondent without considering the same, instead of imposing with the punishment of increment cut for one year, imposed with two years increment cut with cumulative effect. While so, he retired from service. (iii).In the meanwhile, he filed a computation petition u/s.33(C)(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court, Trichy and the same was taken on file as C.P.No.1 of 2020. At the time of hearing, the first respondent filed a calculation memo as to the arrears of wages payable to the petitioner on account of the increment, which was originally cut as a part of punishment, but was restored to him by the Award of the Labour Court, for the period from October 2005 to September 2013.
In the calculation memo, the first respondent admitted the petitioner's revised scale of pay for the said period. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for revised scale of pay of Rs.13,465/- and the respondents are bound to revise the petitioner's pension benefits by taking his scale of pay at the time of retirement as Rs.13,465 instead of Rs.12,625/- from October, 2013. However, the said exercise was not done. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation on 20.11.2023 to the respondents and the same was not considered. Hence, this petition came to be filed.
5. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time. 6.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, this Court hereby directs the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal forwarded by the second respondent with respect to the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.11.2023, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5/7
7.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.01.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM 6/7
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
PNM ORDER IN 30.01.2024 7/7