AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—The petitioner was employed as Driver under the respondent Transport Corporation. He joined the service on 26.12.1984. While so, a charge memo dated 02.01.2014 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was un-authorizedly absent from 29.12.2013. The enquiry proceedings did not get complete and no punishment order was issued. In the mean time, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2015. Proceedings in Ku. No. 3016/A2/A.Vi.Po.Ka/Thi.1/2014 dated 30.09.2015 was passed stating that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service. It is useful to extract the contents of the proceedings as under:
Further, the respondent Transport Corporation is governed by the Standing Orders and Pension Rules. Neither the Standing Orders nor Pension Rules provides for retention of the employees of the Transport Corporation after retirement, like in the case of the Government servants by exercising power under F.R. 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the Transport Corporation. A Full Bench of this Court in S. Andiyannan and Others Vs. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Others , has held that in the absence of rules, the petitioner cannot be retained in service and he would be settled terminal benefits.
In fact in the order dated 30.09.2015, the petitioner was permitted to retire and he was also relieved from his duties. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondent Transport Corporation to settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench made in W.A.(MD) Nos. 383 to 457 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015, by paying the terminal benefits in 12 equal monthly installments. In this regard, it is useful to extract the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment:
"The learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has obtained written instructions vide letter No. 7945/E/2015-2 dated 11.06.2015 that the terminal benefits of the appellants would be settled through twelve equal monthly installments, carrying interest of 6% p.a.
The said statement is thus taken on record and the respondents will be bound by the same, we have to keep in mind the judicial pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in D.D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., , wherein it is held that in case of any delay in making the payment of the installments, the interest payable would become 18% p.a., for the delayed period apart from any other remedy which may be available to the appellants for non-compliance of undertaking given to this Court.
The installments to be paid from July 2015 and each installment should be paid on or before 7th of each month.
The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs."
The first installment shall commence by making payment on or before 10.12.2015 and the amount in each of the remaining installments shall be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The entire terminal amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum as per the Division Bench judgment referred to above. In case of delay in making installments, the interest payable could be 18% for the delayed period.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.