Rajaram K v. The Managing Director
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE K.Rajaram ... Petitioner -vs1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corpn (KMB) Ltd.
New Railway Station Road Kumbakonam-612 001 2.The Financial Adviser Tamilnadu State Transport Corpn (KMB) Ltd.
New Railway Station Road Kumbakonam-612 001 3.The General Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corpn (KMB) Ltd.
Karaikudi Region Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
4.The Administrator TNSTC Employees Pensions Fund Trust SETC (TN) Ltd.
Thiruvalluvar House No.2, Pallavan Salai Chennai-2 ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the 3rd respondents pertaining to the impugned order (Letter) No. ThaAPoKa/Kaarai/NiPi/A1/246 dated 05.03.2021 and quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to implement 2nd and 3rd Review Benefits in the specified period of total 24 years service to the petitioner along with the revised new scale of pay and grade pay in terms of pay revision and to pay the arrears with difference amount in terms of Clause 4 of Settlement under SubSection 12(3) of the I.D.Act dated 22.01.2011 with retrospective from 01.09.2010 to 30.09.
interests at the rate of 6% per annum payable from the date became due to till the date of actual payment to him within the stipulated time limit to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Gokul For Respondents :
Mr.P.Balasubramanian Standing Counsel for R1 to R3
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.03.2021, passed by the third respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request to implement second and third review benefits from 01.09.2010 to 30.09.2015 for 10% in total and also the weightage increments for ten years and twenty years in due time.
2. The third respondent has passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request after taking into consideration the eligible twenty years of service, after deducting the absent days, suspension days, LLP days period, twenty years service weightage benefits given with effect from 01.02.2011 and also entry in the service register.
3. The review calculation details have been furnished in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent before this Court, which are reproduced hereunder: "Date of 1st Review 01.08.1994 Add Review period 01.08.2001 Add Wcc 06 05 01.02.2007 Add punishment 01.02.2008 Add non Qualifing service 1144 days 19.01.2003 20.03.2011 2nd Review 01.05.2011 ____________"
4. The third respondent has taken into consideration the first review benefits given by the respondent - Transport Corporation with effect from 01.08.1994 after service for seven years, in the petitioner's service period, which involved various misconducts, which resulted in punishment, to him totally five years and six months with cumulative effect and only thereafter,
has rejected the petitioner's request in the impugned order. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was absent from duty for a total period of 1144 days. Therefore, after giving due consideration to the impugned order as well as the conduct of the petitioner, as stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the third respondent does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 08.09.2025 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No krk
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk 08.09.2025