K.V. Loganathan vs Pallavan Transport Corporation … on 18 February, 1992

Madras High Court
K.V. Loganathan vs Pallavan Transport Corporation … on 18 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992) 2 MLJ 219
Author: K Bakthavatsalam


ORDER

K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay pensionary benefits as commuted and quantified at Rs. 20,206 together with interest at 18% p.a. from 2.11.1990.

2. The petitioner joined the State Transport Department in 1961 as a Contractor and joined the Corporation and became an employee of the Corporation when it was established in January, 1972. He was working as Traffic Inspector till ….21.10.1990 when he gave a petition for voluntary retirement with effect from 21.10.1990. The letter was accepted by the Corporation. On 2.11.1990, he was informed that he was entitled to commutation of pension amount of Rs. 20,206. When it was not given to the petitioner, he issued a notice through his counsel in November, 1990. The respondent by its letter dated 27.12.1990 informed the petitioner’s counsel that the amount had been withheld consequent upon the receipt of an order of attachment from the IX City Civil Court, Madras in E.P.No.419 of 1990 in O.S.No.5590 of 1983 wherein the petitioner is the judgment-debtor. The petitioner was informed that the amount will be released only after getting further orders from the court. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order in E.P.No.419 of 1990 in O.S.No.5590 of 1983 and he found that the prayer in E.P.No.419 of 1990 is only to attach his salary under Order 21,Rule 48 and when the Corporation as garnishee did not appear on 16.10.1990, the judgment was made absolute and the E.P. was closed. The petitioner contends that the respondent had no jurisdiction to withhold the commutation of the pension amount of Rs. 20,206 based on the order of the City Civil Court. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the order of City Civil Court has nothing to do with the pension amount of Rs. 20,206 as attachment was only made under 0.21, Rule 48 and as a garnishee, the Corporation has been given a notice. With these allegations, the petitioner is before me with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 9.2.1991. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, Mr. P.V. Marthandam appears for the Corporation.

4. After hearing Mr. Srivatsamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing a copy of the order passed by the City Civil Court in E.P.No.419 of 1990, I do not think, there is any justification for the Corporation to delay the payment of pension amount to the petitioner. In the order of attachment, the decree-holder has asked for only attachment of the salary of the petitioner under 0.21, Rule 48. This application has been filed on 12.02.1990 and in the Schedule also, the description of the property is given as “salary”. When the E.P. was called for, the respondent Corporation did not appear as garnishee. The order shows that garnishee called absent, attachment made absolute, E.P. Closed. So, I am of the view that the contention raised by Mr. Srivatsamani has to be accepted that the order of the city civil court in E.P., cannot be pleaded as an excuse by the Corporation for denying the payment of pension made to the petitioner. In my view, the order of attachment has nothing to do with the pensionary benefits and as I have already stated, the petitioner ought to have been paid the amount as early as November, 1990. Unfortunately, misconstruing the order of the City Civil Court, the respondent Corporation has failed to pay the amount to the petitioner. In my view, a writ of mandamus has to issue to the Corporation to pay the amount of Rs. 20,206. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation is that the petitioner can move the City Civil Court for raising the attachment. I do not think this can be the attitude of the Corporation. As a modal employer the Corporation is bound to pay the pension to the petitioner and should not direct the petitioner to face a litigation unnecessarily. Since the petitioner has been defined the benefit of Rs. 20,206 right from November, 1990, I find it is a fit case where the Corporation should pay interest at the rate of 18% to the petitioner. Accordingly, a direction shall issue to the Corporation to pay the amount of Rs. 20,206 together with interest at 18% per annum from 2.11.1990 till the date of payment on or before 22.03.1992.

5. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *