The Court emphasized the obligation of the respondent to consider representations regarding pay discrepancies within a set timeframe without adjudicating on the merits.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay difference in Gratuity and Leave salary with pension arrears based on increased Grade pay and revised pay as per 12(3) settlement dated 04.01.2018 with 10% interest to the petitioners.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Vinothraj, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to pay difference in Gratuity and Leave salary with pension arrears based on increased Grade pay and revised pay as per 12(3) settlement dated

04.01.2018 with 10% interest to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners joined in the service of the respondent/Corporation as Conductors on various dates and at the time of retirement, they were holding the post of Checking Inspectors, Selection Grade Checking Inspectors and Special Grade Conductors. According to the petitioners, they retired from service between 2013 and 2014 on various dates and at the time of their retirement, their grade pay was Rs.2,600/-, but, it has to be increased as Rs.4,300/- at the time of their promotion as per the G.O.(Ms).No.61 dated 30.04.2015. The respondent had failed to increase their grade pay at the time of their promotion and informed that the same will be considered later. Hence, the petitioners retired from service with grade pay of Rs.2,600/- and the respondent settled the terminal benefits based on the last drawn pay. The petitioners would contend that the respondent has to pay difference in leave salary, revised pension and gratuity, as per grade pay of Rs.4,300/- with 10% interest, since 13^th wage settlement was arrived on 04.01.2018 and grade pay was revised for the Checking Inspectors/Driving Instructors with effect from 01.09.2010. In this regard, the petitioners have sent the representations dated 31.12.2025 and 23.01.2026 to the respondent and since the same have not been considered, they have filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it would suffice, if a direction is given to the respondent to consider the representations dated 31.12.2025 and 23.01.2026 and pass appropriate orders within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court, for which, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no serious objection.

5. In view of the limited relief sought herein, which has not been seriously opposed on the side of the respondent/Corporation, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 31.12.2025 and 23.01.2026, if not considered earlier and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.