WP(MD)/900/2026 of C.Govindarajan Vs The Management of on 7 September 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 11.06.2026 30.06.2026 14.07.2026 16.07.2026 24.07.2026 28.07.2026 05.08.2026 18.06.2026 Pronounced on : 07.09.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P (MD) Nos.900 to 904, 6750 to 6752, 1241, 9759, 9760, 10409 to 10413, 9958, 11011, 11191, 11230, 12789, 11467, 19786, 21195, 20975 to 20977, 21241 to 21243, 21238, 17824, 18386, 18391 to 18393, 22313, 16533, 16534, 16535,10366 to 10370, 16536, 16537, 16538 & 16540 of 2026 and 26381 to 26385 of 2023 W.P (MD) No.900 of 2026 C.Govindarajan ... Petitioner Vs. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Nagercoil Region, Rep. by its General Manager Nagercoil. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to revise/refix the scale of pay of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2023 to till his retirement, based on the wage settlement dated 29.05.2025 and consequently to pay him difference/ arrears of terminal benefits namely Gratuity and Encashment of Leave, after revising the same based on such refix scale of pay payable to him on the month of his retirement, together with 18% interest per annum, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

W.P (MD) Nos.900 to 904 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.G.Chandrasekar Mr.A.K.Thangavelu Mr.S.Arunachalam M/s.D.Ramya M/s.J.Shakila For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro

Senior Counsel W.P (MD) Nos.10409 to 10413 of 2026 For Petitioner : M/s.D.Ramya For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Government for Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro W.P (MD) Nos.9759 & 9760 of 2026 For Petitioner : M/s.J.Shakila For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R1 & R2) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (For R3) W.P (MD) No.9958 of 2026 For Petitioner : M/s.D.Ramya For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R1 & R2) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (For R3) `

W.P (MD) No.11011 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Thangavelu For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R1 & R2) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (For R3) W.P (MD) No.11191 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Thangavelu For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R1 & R2) W.P (MD) No.11467 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (For R5) Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R2 to R4) W.P (MD) No.12789 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : M/s.K.Porkodi (For 1) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (For R4) Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R2 to R3) W.P (MD) No.11230 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R1) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (For R2)

W.P (MD) Nos.10366 to 10370 of 2026 For Petitioner : M/s.D.Ramya For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro W.P (MD) No.19786 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Goku For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro W.P (MD) No.21195 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan (For R1) Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R2 & R3) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (for R4) W.P (MD) Nos.20975 to 20977 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vigneswar For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

W.P (MD) Nos.21238 & 21241 to 21243 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan (For R1) Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro (For R2 & R3) Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (for R4) W.P (MD) No.17824 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro

W.P (MD) Nos.18386 & 18391 to 18393 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah W.P (MD) No.22313 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh W.P (MD) Nos. 16533 16534, 16535, 16536, 16537, 16538 & 16540 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro W.P (MD) Nos. 26381 to 26385 of 2023 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Government

Mr.K.Ramaiah W.P (MD) Nos. 6750 to 6752 of 2023 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Government

Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro, Senior Counsel (For R1)

W.P (MD) No.1241 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro, Senior Counsel C O M M O N O R D E R The issue that arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case in W.P.(MD) No.900 of 2026 are alone referred to, and the same is sufficient to answer the issues that are required to be answered in this batch of matters.

3. The petitioner herein was appointed as a ‘Driver’ on 01.08.1993 in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Nagercoil Region and after having worked for about three decades, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the capacity of ‘Special Grade Driver’ on 31.07.2024. Accordingly, his terminal benefits were all settled basing upon the last drawn pay of the petitioner as of 31.07.2024. There is no dispute with regard to the same.

4. It was thereafter the respondent Corporation entered into a wage settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 29.05.2025. In terms of Clause (1) of the said settlement, the settlement was given effect retrospectively with effect from 01.09.2023, and the benefit that was extended under the said settlement is to add a 6% increment to the basic salary drawn as on 31.08.2023. In terms of Clause 37(b), the monetary benefit under the settlement was granted only with effect from 01.09.2024. All the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are the persons who were retired from service of the respondent Corporations between 01.09.2023 and 31.08.2024. In respect of the employees who retired from service after 01.09.2024, their pay has been revised duly adding 6% increment as on 31.08.2023, and they were all paid monetary benefits on 01.09.2024. So also, all the employees who retired after 01.09.2024 are being paid the terminal benefits based on the revised pay in terms of the settlement. When the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who retired after 01.09.2023 and prior to 31.08.2024, made a claim for revision of their pay with effect from 01.09.2023 and for payment of the differential amount of terminal benefits in terms of such revised pay, the same has not been acceded to by the respondent Corporations. Hence, all those employees who retired between 01.09.2023 and 31.08.2024 have approached this Court by filing various writ petitions.

5. In the light of the above, the only question that would arise for consideration in this batch is as to whether the employees of the respondent Corporations who retired between 01.09.2023 and 31.08.2024 are entitled to the benefit of revision of their pay in terms of Clause (1) of the settlement dated 29.05.2025 entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and for the consequential payment of differential amounts of terminal benefits based on the revised pay or not.

6. Heard Mr. Arunachalam, Mr.A. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners leading the batch and Mr.B. Saravanan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.C.Herold Singh and Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

7. There is no dispute on factual aspects. Admittedly, the 12(3) settlement dated 29.05.2025 was given retrospective effect with effect from 01.09.2023, and Clause (1) of the settlement specifically makes the settlement applicable to all the employees who were in service as on 01.09.2023. At the same time, Clause 37(b) also makes it clear that the arrears of monetary benefits arising out of the settlement would be calculated from 01.09.2024 and paid in four quarterly installments.

8. For the purpose of clarity, the said clauses 1 and 37(b) of the Settlement dated 29.05.2025 are extracted hereunder:- 1/ mog;gil Cjpa epu;zak; “ jkpH;ehL muR nghf;Ftuj;J fHf';fspy; 01/09/2023 md;W gzpg[hpa[k; epue;ju bjhHpyhsh;fSf;F (Permanent Employees as on 01-09-2023) fPH;fz;flthW mog;gil Cjpak; 01/09/2023 Kjy; epu;zak; bra;ag;gLk;/ 31/08/2023 md;W mth;fs ; bgw;Wte;j mog;gil Cjpaj;jpy ; 6% cah;t [ mspj;J fz;f;fPL bra;J g[jpa mog;gil Cjpak; epu;zak; bra;ag;gLk;/ 37/ bghJ (M) ,e;j xg;ge;jj;jpd; K:ykhd gzg;gad; epYitj; bjhif 01/09/2024 Kjy; fzf;fplg;gl;L 4 jtizfshf fhyhz;LnjhWk; tH';fg;gLk;/”

9. All the petitioners herein are the employees who were retired prior to 01.09.2024 and, therefore, the question of payment of any arrears of monetary benefits after 01.09.2024 in terms of Clause 37(b) will not arise, and there is no claim in that regard by the petitioners.

10. As already noted above, the only benefit that was extended under the settlement in question is the enhancement of basic pay by adding 6%

increment to the basic pay that was drawn by an employee as on 31.08.2023. By adding the said 6% increment as on 31.08.2023, the monetary benefits were paid from 01.09.2024 to the employees who were in service on or after 01.09.2024. If the intention of the parties to the settlement is only to extend the benefit of the settlement to the employees who are in service as on 01.09.2024, the date with effect from which monetary benefit was allowed, there was no necessity to give effect to the settlement with effect from 01.09.2023. The settlement emphatically makes it clear that the said settlement is applicable to all the employees who were in service as on 01.09.2023. Except for the increase in the basic pay drawn by an employee as on 31.08.2023 by 6%, there was no other benefit that was extended under the settlement. In such circumstances, whether the pay of an employee is revised with effect from 01.09.2023 or 01.09.2024 hardly makes any difference. There was no necessity to give retrospective effect to the settlement with effect from 01.09.2023. From the very fact that the settlement was given effect to from 01.09.2023 itself makes it abundantly clear that the intention of the parties was to extend the benefit of 6% increase in the basic pay to all the employees who were in service as on 31.08.2023.

11. Therefore, the stand of the respondents and the learned Additional Advocate General contending that any claim for refixation of wages retrospectively with effect from 01.09.2023 is impermissible and contrary to the express terms of the settlement cannot be accepted. Admittedly, all the petitioner were in service as on 01.09.2023 and retired on or before 31.08.2024. By virtue of the retrospective effect given to the settlement with effect from 01.09.2023, allowing the benefit of the settlement to all the employees who were in service as on 31.08.2023, all such benefits under the Settlement are bound to be extended in its true spirit.

12. The petitioners herein are all claiming for fixation of their basic pay by applying Clause (1) of the Settlement, by enhancing their pay drawn as on 31.08.2023 by awarding 6% increment and thereby arriving at their last drawn pay, and then calculating the terminal benefits and to pay the differential amount to the petitioners. As already observed above, if the intention of the parties to the settlement is otherwise to disentitle the persons who were in service as on 01.09.2023 and retired prior to 31.08.2024, there was no necessity to give retrospective effect to the settlement with effect from 01.09.2023 and, at the same time, they would have made a specific exclusion by including appropriate terms in the settlement itself. Admittedly, there is no such clause excluding the employees who were in service as on 01.09.2023 and retired from service prior to 31.08.2024. Thus, the intention of the parties is very clear from the settlement itself, i.e., to extend the benefit of the settlement to all the employees who were in service as on 01.09.2023. Such an intention, which is abundantly clear, cannot be given a go-by based on the fractured interpretation and understanding of the terms of the settlement.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have also placed reliance on various decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the last drawn paywages under Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, in support of their contention to say that the last drawn pay is not only the pay actually drawn but the pay payable to an employee also to be construed as the last drawn pay. There cannot be any controversy in that regard. In terms of Clause (1) of the Settlement in question, the increase or increment at the rate of 6% on the basic pay drawn by an employee as on 31.08.2023 is to be extended to all the employees who were in service as on 01.09.2023. Admittedly, all the petitioners herein are in service as on 01.09.2023. By operation of Clause (1) of the Settlement in question, the pay of the petitioners drawn as on 31.08.2023 is bound to be refixed by adding 6% increment with effect from 01.09.2023. By virtue of

Clause 37(b) of the settlement, the petitioners are not entitled to any monetary benefits with effect from 01.09.2023. But once their pay is refixed in terms of Clause (1) of the Settlement, the said revised pay would become the last drawn pay of the petitioners. In terms of Rule 15(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Rules, the pensionable salary shall be the last drawn basic pay. Once the basic pay of an employee is revised in terms of Clause (1) of the settlement by adding 6% increment as on 31.08.2023, the same should be the basis for calculating the terminal benefits of an employee.

14. All the petitioners herein were paid the terminal benefits basing upon the last drawn pay as on the date of their retirement, which is after 01.09.2023 and prior to 31.08.2024, i.e., in terms of the pre-revised last drawn pay. Once it is concluded that the petitioners are entitled for revision of their pay as on 01.09.2023, necessarily, their terminal benefits have to be calculated basing upon the pay revised in terms of Clause (1) of the Settlement.

15. At this stage, it is necessary to consider an order dated 16.04.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Review Application (MD)

No.193 of 2024 and batch, relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General. In the said decision, though the issue relating to the payment of terminal benefits by revising the basic pay and the payment of arrears of salary has arisen for consideration, the learned Judge has discussed only about the claim for payment of arrears of wages and concluded that the employees who were in service as on date themselves were allowed to draw arrears between the date of commencement of settlement till the date with effect from which the monetary benefits were extended. The persons who retired between the date of commencement of the settlement and the date with effect from which the monetary benefits were extended cannot claim the arrears. This is evident from Paragraph No.21 of the said decision, which reads as under:- “21.A cumulative reading of Clause 1 and Clause 37 of the 14th Wage Settlement dated 24.08.2022 reveals that though 14th wage settlement is applicable to those who are in service on 01.09.2019, yet the monetary benefits would start flowing only from 01.01.2022. The interim relief that was granted from 01.02.2021, would be adjusted from the monetary relief that will be granted from 01.01.2022. Therefore, it is clear that even the employees who are serving as on today, have not received any monetary benefits from 01.09.2019 till 31.12.2021. Therefore, an employee who had retired prior to 01.01.2022 cannot place himself in a higher pedestral and claim monetary benefits from 01.09.2019 onwards.”

16. Thus, it is evident that the learned Judge has not dealt with the aspect of entitlement of the employees like the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions for revision of their basic pay and for differential amounts. Further, the learned Judge was dealing with the 14th Wage Settlement dated 24.08.2022. As there was no decision or discussion in the said order dealing with the claim like the one made by the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that the said decision has no relevance to the present batch of writ petitions.

17. In this connection, it is also relevant to refer to an order issued by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.142, Transport (E) Department, dated 26.08.2019. Through the said Government Order, the revision of pension to the retired employees of the State Transport undertakings was implemented by the Government based on the recommendations of the Official Committee appointed for the purpose. Paragraph No.3 of the said Government Order reads as under:- “3. After careful examination, the Government have decided to accept the proposal of the Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, based on the recommendations of the Official Committee and ordered as follows:-

(a) Implement the revision of pension to the petitioners who are covered under 13th Wage Settlement [for those who have retired between 01.09.2016 and 31.12.2017] with notional effect from 01.09.2016 and with monetary benefit prospectively.

(b) Implement the revision of pension as per 7th Pay Commission to the Pensioners [for those who have retired between 01.01.2016 and 31.03.2018] with notional effect from 01.01.2016 and with monetary benefit prospectively.

(c) Dearness Allowance at present rates shall be continued without any change.

(d) The entire financial commitment likely to arise on such revision shall be incurred by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust without seeking any financial assistance, in any form, from the Government.”

18. From the above, it is apparent that the Government itself issued orders requiring all State Transport undertakings to implement the 13th Wage Settlement by extending the benefit of pension in favour of the persons who retired between 01.09.2016 and 31.12.2017 with notional effect from 01.09.2016 and with monetary benefits prospectively. This is exactly the benefit the petitioners herein are seeking in the present batch of writ petitions, but the respondent Corporations have unjustly resisted the said claim.

19. As an identical wage settlement, i.e., 13th Wage Settlement, has been given effect to in respect of persons who retired between 01.01.2016 and 31.03.2018, i.e., the date from which the settlement came into force and the date from which the monetary benefits were extended, they were allowed to have their pensionary benefits revised in terms of the said settlement. In the present batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are claiming for an identical benefit, i.e., the employees retired between 01.09.2023 and 31.08.2024. For this reason also, the claim of the petitioners is bound to be allowed.

20. At the same time, it is also necessary to notice that the Madurai Bench of this Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions under similar circumstances in W.P.(MD) No.8910 of 2024 and batch, vide order dated 25.06.2024, and has extended an identical benefit to the petitioners therein, directing for revision of their pay as on 01.09.2023 and to pay the terminal benefits by revising the basic pay. There is nothing brought to the notice of this Court to say that the said order was appealed against.

21. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the stand of the respondent Corporations or the attempt made by the respondent Corporations to deny the benefit of revision of pay in terms of the settlement with effect from 01.09.2023 to all the petitioners who were in service as on 01.09.2023 and retired prior to 31.08.2024 is highly arbitrary, illegal and is an unfair act on the part of the respondent Corporations.

22. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed, directing the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioners, who were all in service as on 01.09.2023, in terms of Clause (1) of the settlement dated 29.05.2025 and consequently recalculate the terminal benefits based on the revised last drawn pay and also to pay the differential amount of terminal benefits together with 6% interest from the date of settlement, i.e., 29.05.2025, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 07.09.2026 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Note: Registry is directed to type the cause-title for each of the cases, if necessary.

To The General Manager, Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Nagercoil Region, Nagercoil.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. skr W.P (MD) Nos.900 to 904, 6750 to 6752, 1241, 9759, 9760, 10409 to 10413, 9958, 11011, 11191, 11230, 12789, 11467, 19786, 21195, 20975 to 20977, 21241 to 21243, 21238, 17824, 18386, 18391 to 18393, 22313, 16533, 16534, 16535,10366 to 10370, 16536, 16537, 16538 & 16540 of 2026 and 26381 to 26385 of 2023 07.09.2026