V. Ramanan v. The Managing Director
W.P.(MD) No.575 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.575 of 2020 V.Ramanan Petitioner Vs
1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Limited Kumbakonam Tanjore District
2. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakonam Limited Karaikudi Region Sivagangai District
3. The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Chennai Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2016 notionally and to pay difference in salary with implement from 01.10.2017 and to pay the difference in gratuity, difference in earned leave salary, difference in commutation and difference in pension with effect from the date of retirement of the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in terms of 7th pay commission recommendations for revision of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.134, Transport (D) Department dated 09.04.2018 within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajeshkumar For Respondents : For R1 & R2 - Mr.D.Sivaraman Standing Counsel For R3 - Mr.A.Swaminathan Standing Counsel
O R D E R
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. Though the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2016 notionally and to pay difference in salary, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
W.P.(MD) No.575 of 2020 gratuity, earned leave salary, commutation and pension with effect from the date of retirement of the petitioner together with interest and in terms of 7th pay commission recommendations for revision of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.134, Transport (D) Department dated 09.04.2018 , in my view, such a decision is to be taken by the respondents and in case, the petitioner is aggrieved against such any decision, it would be appropriate to approach this Court.
3. The petitioner would submit that he has already made representation on 29.11.2019 in this regard, which is said to be pending. If the said representation is directed to be disposed of within stipulated time, the ends of justice could be secured.
4. Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority to redress the claim of the employee, 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. Such an inaction would amount to dereliction of duties and thereby this Court would be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and thereby direct such authority to consider the representation within the stipulated time.
5. In view of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 29.11.2019, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the claim made by the petitioner in the representation and it is for the respondents to consider it in accordance with law.
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vrn +1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-1483[F] dated 10/01/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.SWAMINATHAN, Advocate ( SR-1522[F] dated 10/01/2020 ) +1 CC to M/s.B.SANTHANAM RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-1623[F] W.P.(MD) No.575 of 2020 10.01.2020 SMA/31/01/2020/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2