The Managing Director v. S.Sampath
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.7088 of 2025
1. The Managing Director, TNSTC (Madurai) Limited, Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 625 016.
2. The Administrator, TNSTC Employees Pension Fund Trust, Office of SETC HO, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
...
Applicants -Vs1. S.Sampath
2. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department and Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
... Respondents PRAYER : Review Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w.under 1/6
Section 114 of CPC against the order dated 04.07.2024 made in W.A.(MD)No. 1099 of 2024.
For Applicants :
Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate For Respondents :
Mr.R.Karunanidhi for R1
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This review application has been filed seeking review of the order passed by us in W.A.(MD)No.1099 of 20244 dated 04.07.2024.
2. The issue was whether the first respondent / employee is entitled to get the pay revision by fixing his pay scale by adopting 2.44 multiplier factor or 2.57 multiplier factor.
3. Though there has been a wage settlement pursuant to which the implementation of pay benefits as per the wage settlement since had been commenced from 01.09.2017, well prior to the said date, the first respondent since got promotion into Supervisor cadre on 04.03.2017, he would be entitled 2/6
to get the wage revision by virtue of 7th Pay Commission Recommendation. This position is a fortified one.
4. When that being so, the denial of such benefit since has been questioned before the writ Court, the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition and the said view taken by the learned Judge has been confirmed by our order dated 04.07.2024.
5. We have given complete reasons for sustaining the order passed by the writ Court by dismissing the writ appeal filed by the Transport Corporation in our order dated 04.07.2024 at paragraph Nos.8, 9 & 10. The said reasoning speaks for itself.
6. Therefore, we do not find any error apparently on the face of the record in the said order dated 04.07.2024, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this review application. In that view of the matter, this Review Application is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed.
7. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review applicants / Transport Corporation has made a request that the 3/6
implementation of the order of the Division Bench dated 04.07.2024 can be given some time of eight weeks. The said submission is recorded, thereby eight weeks time is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to implement the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 22.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji 4/6
To The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department and Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
5/6
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
vji and C.M.P.(MD)No.7088 of 2025 22.04.2025 6/6