The Managing Director v. T.Rajendran

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.A.(MD) No.549 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD)No.5131 of 2026 1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2.The Senior Deputy Manager, State Express Transport Corporation, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.

3.The Branch Manager, Sencottai Branch, State Express Transport Corporation, Tenkasi District.

... Appellants -vsT.Rajendran ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 09.10.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.26104 of 2025 on the file of this Court. 1/5

For Appellants :

Mr.SC.Herold Singh For Respondent :

Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2025, in and by which this Court directed the authorities to provide the writ petitioner an alternative job and pay his last drawn salary to the petitioner from 12.06.2023, this writ appeal has been filed.

2.The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Driver cum conductor. During his service he suffered disability and obtained medical leave. For such period, the salary to the writ petitioner was rejected treating the said period as unauthorized absent. However, the learned Single Judged directed the appellants to pay salary to the writ petitioner for such period. 3.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that considering the disability acquired by the respondent/writ petitioner, an alternative employment as Conductor has been granted to the respondent. However, the respondent 2/5

having failed to join in the said post and taken unauthorized leave, has approached this Court seeking salary for the said period. 4.We have perused the entire materials placed on record. 5.The learned Single Judge considering the mandatory provisions under the provisions of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 directed the appellant to pay the last drawn salary from 12.06.2023. The fact that the respondent acquired disability during his service is not disputed. The grievance of the respondent is that though the leave was treated as medical leave, he was not paid salary for the said period. 6.

In our considered view, once the appellants have recognized the disability of the respondent and granted medical leave, they cannot deny salary for such period by treating it as unauthorized absence. Admittedly, the respondent acquired disability during service.

Full Participation) Act, 1995. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. 7.The appellants are directed to pay the last drawn salary to the respondent from the date of disability ie., 12.06.2023, after adjusting the salary already paid, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8.With the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 20.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ta 4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR ,J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.

ta W.A(MD)No.549 of 2026 20.04.2026 5/5