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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
P.Samiappan – Appellant
Versus
The Management of – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P(MD) No.8357 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 27.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

W.P(MD) No.8357 of 2026

P.Samiappan ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,

Karur Region, Rep. by its General Manager,

Karur. ... Respondent

PRAYER:-Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner amount towards the encashment of 116 days of earned leaves surrendered by him in the years before his retirement either based on his monthly wages of the respective months of surrender of those earned leaves, together with 18% interest p.a. from the respective due dates or based on the monthly wages payable on the month of his retirement, together with 18% interest from the date of his

retirement.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE2##

W.P(MD) No.8357 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramiah

Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner amount towards the encashment of 116 days of earned leaves surrendered by him in the years before his retirement either based on his monthly wages of the respective months of surrender of those earned leaves, together with 18% interest p.a. from the respective due dates or based on the monthly wages payable on the month of his retirement, together with 18% interest

from the date of his retirement.

2. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up

for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The case of the petitioner is that in terms of the settlement

arrived under Section 12(3) of the ID Act, the employees of the

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE3##

W.P(MD) No.8357 of 2026

respondent Corporation are entitled to surrender Earned Leave of 15 days in one year or 30 days in 2 years and the remaining 15 days, or 30 days as the case may be, can be accumulated as terminal Earned Leave upto

maximum of 240 days.

4. The petitioner herein, who has retired from service is

allowed to encash 240 days of of Earned Leave. However, the petitioner claims that he has 116 days more Earned Leave available, which were earned by him during the period 2011 to 2019. But the petitioner was not allowed to encash the said Earned Leave at the relevant point of time due to financial crisis being faced by the respondent Corporation. Hence, he claims that he is entitled to encash the same, but the respondent Corporation is not allowing him to encash. Hence, he contend that the petitioner is entitled for encashment of the Earned Leave that is available to the credit of the petitioner and for payment of the same with interest at

6% per annum.

5. At the threshold, the learned counsel appearing for the

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE4##

W.P(MD) No.8357 of 2026

petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the very same issue has fallen for consideration before this Court in W.P(MD)No.2449 of 2018 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 02.04.2018 allowed an identical claim under identical fact situation. A copy of the same is also placed before this Court. It is also further brought to the notice of this Court that the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 02.04.2018 was also confirmed by a Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court in W.A(MD)No.210 of 2019 by order dated 04.09.2019.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent Corporation also has not disputed about the said legal

position.

7. In the light of the same, this Court does not find any

reason to re-adjudicate the matter once again. In W.P(MD)No.2449 of

2018 at paragraph Nos.11 to 14 this Court held as under :

''11. It is not in dispute that there was 12(3)

sett

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