P.Mariyappan v. The Managing Director,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH P.Mariyappan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Managing Director, 2.The General Manager, Kumbakonam Region, ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement 4% of dearness allowance and on the basis of the same to settle the difference amount of Gratuity, Pension and Earned Leave Salary along with 6% interest, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2025, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul

For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the 4% Dearness Allowance and on the basis of the same, to settle the differential amounts payable towards Gratuity, Pension and Earned Leave Salary, along with interest at the rate of 6%, based on the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2025, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a 'Conductor' in the respondent Corporation on 12.01.1991 and retired from service on 30.04.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 4% Dearness Allowance (DA) was due to be implemented with effect from January 2023, but in fact, it was implemented only from May 2023. As a result, the petitioner, who retired on 30.04.2023, was excluded from the benefit of the said DA increase. Had the 4% DA been implemented from the correct date, i.e., January 2023, the petitioner would have been entitled to a corresponding increase in the computation of Gratuity, Pension and Earned Leave Salary, which are all wage-linked retirement benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner claims entitlement to the differential amounts along

with interest at 6% p.a. for the delay. Despite several personal representations made by the petitioner to the respondents, no effective action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a written representation dated 24.03.2025, requesting settlement of the dues. However, no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representation till date. Left with no other effective remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, seeking appropriate directions for the redressal of his legitimate and lawful grievance.

3. Heard both sides.

4. 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 him 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 the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the first respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

6. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. NCC : Yes / No 08.07.2025 Index : Yes / No smn2 To:- 1.The Managing Director,

2.The General Manager, Kumbakonam Region,

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH , J.

smn2 08.07.2025