R.Alagarsamy, S/O.Ramasamy, v. State Express Transport

O R D E R This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 as illegal in so far as taking the salary of the petitioner for the month of December 2007 instead of February 2014 and also taken 92% Dearness Allowance instead of 100% for computing gratuity amount and leave salary and inconsequence direct the respondent to pay the terminal benefits amount payable to the petitioner including Difference in Gratuity and unavailed Medical Leave salary by taking the last month salary of February 2014 in the light of 12(3) Settlement, dated 13.02.1999, G.O.(Nilai)No.220, Transport (C1) Department, dated 06.08.1999, and also G.O.No.100, dated 09.04.2014, together with 18% interest from the date of his retirement i.e. 28.02.2014, to till the date of actual payment made to him and all other attendant benefits within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶2The petitioner joined as Junior Engineer in respondent Corporation on 01.04.1987 and retired from service on 28.02.2014. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has not included the difference in gratuity, difference in un-availed medical leave salary and has not granted the same to the petitioner while disbursing the terminal benefits. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.4819 of 2018, seeking direction to settle the amount with 18% interest and this Court, vide order, dated 07.03.2018.

¶3In the above said writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the difference amount payable to the petitioner would be paid with interest at 6%per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated

06.09.2018.

¶4The contention of the petitioner is that in violation of their own undertaking through the learned Standing Counsel, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated 24.09.2018, denying the difference in gratuity and medical leave. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that as per the 12(3) settlement, paragraph 2 of the 12(3) settlement states as under: "2.The pay of the existing employees will be fixed in the revised scales of pay effective from 1.9.98 in the manner indicated below. The revised scales of Pay are given below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SI.No. Existing Scale of Pay Revised Scale of Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Miscellaneous/Working Group

¶11690-20-2170 3260-60-4680

¶21710-20-1870-25-2245 3260-60-3740-65-4715

¶31735-20-1895-25-2270 3290-60-3770-65-4745

¶41770-25-2470 3390-75-5490

¶51795-25-2495 3410-75-5510

¶61840-25-2090-30-2570 3460-75-4210-80-5490

¶71865-25-2115-30-2595 3480-75-4230-80-5510

¶81890-30-2100-35-2800 3510-90-4140-95-6040

¶91915-30-2125-35-2825 3530-90-4160-95-6060

¶101980-30-2190-40-2950 3600-90-4230-95-6035

¶112000-40-2200-45-3100 3620-120-4220-125-6720 Supervisory Group (Administrative/Traffic/Non-qualified Technical)

¶122010-40-2290-50-3240 4145-120-4985-125-7360

¶132115-50-2465-60-3545 4490-150-5540-155-8330

¶142280-60-2700-70-3960 4895-180-6155-185-9485 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶5The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner will be entitled to 12(3) settlement and benefits. Since the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer, he will come under Technical cadre. Therefore, this portion of the 12(3) settlement is applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner further relies on G.O.(Nilai)No.220, Transport (C1) Department, dated 06.08.1999, wherein it states as under: "jkpo;ehL muR RUf;fk; muR Nghf;Ftuj;Jf; fofq;fs; -Gjpa tpLg;Gj;jpl;lk; mKy;gLj;j Mizfs; ntspaplg;gl;lJ -31.08.1998 md;W epYitapy; cs;s kUj;Jt tpLg;G -gzkhf ngw;Wf;nfhs;tJ Fwpj;J -Miz ntspaplg;gLfpwJ. Nghf;Ftuj;J (rp1) Jiw muR Miz (epiy) vz;.220 ehs;:06.08.1999 W.P.(MD)No.1667oofo2019 gbff; :-

1.muR epiy vz;.163 Nghf;Ftuj;J (rp.1) Jiw ehs;:

21.05.1999

2.gy;NtW njhopw;rqf; q;fsplkpUe;J ngwg;gl;l Nfhhpf;iffs; ------ Miz:- khepyj;jpYs;s midj;J NghfF; tuj;Jf; fofq;fspy; gzpGhpAk; gzpahsh;fSfF; k; 31.08.1998-y; cs;s kUj;Jt tpLg;ig Gjpa tpLg;G jpll; j;jpd; fPo; css; kUj;Jt tpLg;Gld; Nrh;j;Jf;nfhss; mDkjpff; g;gl;lJ css; lf;fpa Gjpa tpLgG; j;jpl;lk; 01.09.1998 Kjy; mKyg; Lj;j ghh;itapy; gbff; g;gl;l murhizapd;gb Miz ntspaplg;gl;lJ.

2.,e;epiyapy; gy;NtW njhopw;rqf; q;fs; 31.08.1998 Kba njhopyhshf; s; Nrh;j;J itj;Jss; kUj;Jt tpLg;ig cldbahfNth my;yJ Fwpg;gpll; fhyf;nfLTflFs;NsNah gzkhf;fpf;nfhs;s mDkjpff; Ntz;Lnkd Ntz;LNfhs; tpLj;jd.

3.,jid muR tphpthf ghprPypj;J> mjd;gb Nghf;Ftuj;Jf; fof njhopyhshf; s; Gjpa tpLg;Gj;jpll; j;jpd; foP ;tUk;NghJ 31.08.1998 md;W epYitapYs;s kUj;Jt tpLg;ig jdpf;fzff; hf itj;jpUe;J mth;fs; Xa;T ngWk;NghJ mg;NghJss; rkg; s tpfpjj;jpy; gzk; ngw;Wf;nfhs;s mDkjpf;fyhk; vd ,jd; top muR MizapLfpwJ. (MSehpd; Mizg;gb) m.ehfuhrd; muR nrayhsh;"

¶6On perusal of the above referred orders, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cadres / categories mentioned in the said orders are entitled to medical leave benefits. Since the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer, he will come under "Technical Service". But the cadre mentioned in the 12(3) settlement is "Supervisory Group (non-qualified technical)". Since the petitioner is "technically qualified" person, whether the said 12(3) settlement is applicable or not ought to be considered.

¶7Therefore, this Court is remitting the case back to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said 12(3) settlement and pass orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8If the petitioner is aggrieved over the 12(3) settlement, the petitioner is also at liberty to challenge the 12(3) settlement as per law.

¶9With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Index : Yes / No

17.03.2023 Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No Tmg S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg

17.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.03.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY R.Alagarsamy ... Petitioner vs. State Express Transport Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Ref. No. 014702/C3/A.Vi.Po.Ka/2016, dated 24th September 2018, to quash the same as illegal in so far as taking the salary of the petitioner for the month of December 2007 instead of February 2014 and also taken 92% Dearness Allowance instead of 100% for computing gratuity amount and leave salary and inconsequence direct the respondent to pay the terminal benefits amount payable to the petitioner including Difference in Gratuity and unavailed Medical Leave salary by taking the last month salary of February 2014 in the light of 12(3) Settlement, dated 13.02.1999, G.O.(Nilai)No.220, Transport (C1) Department, dated 06.08.1999, and also G.O.No.100, dated 09.04.2014, together with 18% interest from the date of his retirement i.e. 28.02.2014, to till the date of actual payment made to him and all other attendant benefits within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ajoy Khose for Mr.A.Rahul For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh *****