R.Balakrishnan v. The Additional Chief Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH W.P.(MD) No.19182 of 2025 R.Balakrishnan : Petitioner Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.
2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641 043.
3. The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Ltd., Tiruppur Region, Tiruppur.
: Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle the petitioner retirement benefits including provident Fund of Rs. 14,34,688/- Gratuity amount of Rs.16,69,083/- and Terminal leave Salary amount of Rs.1,34,426/- totaling to Rs.32,38/197/- together with interest at the rate of 6 percentage per annum from the date of his retirement i.e 31.10.2024 to till the date on which the said benefits are settle to him. 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani (R1) Special Government Pleader Mr.K.Ramaiah (R2 & R3)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner including provident fund, gratuity and terminal leave salary together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.10.2024 to till the date on which the said benefits are settled to him.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined in the first respondent Corporation as 'Driver' with effect from 25.07.1991. After periodical promotion, the petitioner was promoted as 'Special Grade Driver'. He retired from service on 31.10.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation. Though the respondents had allowed the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.10.2024, the retirement benefits were not disbursed to the petitioner. In fact, one year prior to his retirement, he can withdraw 90% of his total provident fund accumulation as per Rule 13(1)(j) of TNSTC Employees Provident Fund 2/6
Trust Rules. The amount of Rs.14,34,688/- is lying in the provident fund account, out of which, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw 90% of the said amount. But the respondents did not permit the petitioner to withdraw the said amount. As per the petitioner, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,34,688/- towards provident fund, Rs.16,69,083/- towards gratuity and Rs.1,34,426/- towards terminal leave salary. Totally, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.32,28,197/- after his retirement.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants funds for his emergent needs. The petitioner with a hope that he can get terminal benefits much earlier which will be useful for his needs. But the terminal benefits were not disbursed even after nearly one year from the date of his retirement. He borrowed money from the money lenders and he needs funds to repay the loan. Hence, he made a representation, dated 11.04.2025 to the respondents. But till date, the amounts have not been paid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the respondent Corporation is in financial crisis. They have 3/6
to get funds from the State Government. Due to that reason, they could not settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner.
5. Having heard the submissions of the respective learned counsels and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to retire with effect from 31.10.2024. After retirement, the petitioner is entitled for retirement benefits, for which he is legally entitled. Without settling the same, the respondents committed serious mistake by withholding the said benefits for the last one year, which is not permissible under the settled proposition of law. The retirement benefits such as provident fund, gratuity and other terminal benefits are not bounty. The respondents are not paying the said amount as charity to the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court time and again held that the employees after retirement are entitled for all the retirement and terminal benefits, for which they are entitled, as a matter of right. In the present case, it appears that the respondents did not consider the representation, dated 11.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner to redress his grievance.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court intends to direct the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits for which the petitioner is legally entitled towards provident fund, gratuity, terminal leave salary and commuted value of pension forthwith to the petitioner to meet the interest of justice.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
1. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to settle all the terminal benefits for which the petitioner is legally entitled and also release the pension to the petitioner forthwith.
2. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to pay 6% interest towards provident fund, gratuity, terminal leave salary from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.
No costs.
16.07.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm 5/6
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Sm To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600009.
2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641 043.
3. The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (CBE) Ltd., Tiruppur Region, Tiruppur.
W.P.(MD) No.19182 of 2025 16.07.2025 6/6