Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
G. Paul Expedit – Appellant
Versus
Metropolitan Transport Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court acknowledges the nature of the writ petition concerning wage revision claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. adoption of precedent for mandatory implementation of wage settlements and interest on arrears. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the second respondent.
2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to revise the petitioner’s scale of pay with effect from 01.09.2023 based on the new wage settlement dated 29.05.2025 (15th Wage Settlement) and consequently to pay the petitioner the difference/arrears of wages for the period from 01.09.2023 to 31.03.2024, as well as the differential amounts in the petitioner’s terminal benefits, namely gratuity, leave encashment and pension, after revisi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
