SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
L. Palaniappan – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Chennai – Respondents
W.P. No. 16270 of 2015
Decided on : 12-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Chinnasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Anitha, C. Gauthama Raj, Advocate.

Timely filing of petitions and the settlement of benefits at the time of retirement are crucial factors considered by the court in deciding on pensionary benefits.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Pensionary Benefits - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking pensionary benefits accumulated from a specific date, citing the petitioner's belated filing of the petition and the settlement of benefits at the time of retirement.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay pensionary benefits accumulated from a specific date, claiming to have completed the required service period. The petitioner had retired after a long service and had not raised any objections at the time of retirement.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the petitioner's belated filing, after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of retirement, and the settlement of benefits at the time of retirement.

Issues: Belated filing of the writ petition and settlement of benefits at the time of retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of petitions and the settlement of benefits at the time of retirement, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed both on merits and on the ground of laches, with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the pensionary benefits accumulated from 29.05.1979 onwards from which date the petitioner had completed the required service of ten years with future benefits.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the pensionary benefits accumulated from 29.05.1979 onwards from which date the petitioner had completed the required period of ten years with pension benefits.

2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed in the Indian Red Cross Society. He joined duty on 30.05.1969 and was working till 30.08.1974. Subsequently, the petitioner was absorbed in the Transport Department as Labour Welfare Inspector and joined duty on 31.08.1974. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager In-charge and retired from service on 30.06.1996 as Assistant Manager.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1996. All the terminal and pensionary benefits due to him during the relevant point of time were settled in favour of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner had not raised any objections during the relevant point of time. The present writ petition is filed after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner.

5. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed in the Transport Department. However, the learned counsel for the respondent disputed the same by stating that the writ petitioner was appointed by the Transport Corporation and not by the Transport Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, he is not eligible to avail the pensionary benefits applicable to the Transport Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Transport Corporation terminal benefits due to the writ petitioner were already settled at the time of his retirement. Now the petitioner filed the present writ petition at the age of 76 years and as of now, he would be around 84 years.

6. The writ petition has been filed belatedly after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of retirement of the writ petitioner. That apart, the benefits as applicable due to the writ petitioner was settled at the time of his retirement.

7. This being the factum, the writ petitioner stands dismissed both on merits and on the ground of laches. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top