S.PALANI vs STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Court
Madras High Court

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 35627 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA012175412024}
and
WMP No. 18219 of 2026
S.Palani
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State Express Transport Corporation
Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600002.
2. The Deputy Manager (PB)
State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600002.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fix and pay the
correct basic pay and other allowances w.e.f 28.10.2023 to the petitioner and
pay all the retirement benefits, including pension along with the interest at the
rate of 9 percentage p.a. for the belated disbursement of monetary benefits
w.e.f.01.08.2024.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Premkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Gauthamaraj,
Standing Counsel
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17.08.2024.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the
respondent authority ought to have fixed the correct basic pay and other
allowances payable to the petitioner on par with those of his co-employees with
effect from 28.10.2023. It is the further contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was terminated from service on
17.08.2010. Parallelly, the respondent Corporation filed an Approval Petition in
A.P.No.142 of 2010 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
approving authority rejected the said Approval Petition on 12.01.2015.
Thereafter, when the Corporation challenged the order passed in A.P.No.142 of
2010 before this Court, this Court, vide order dated 10.07.2023 in
W.P.Nos.14396 and 14397 of 2016, directed the reinstatement of the petitioner
without back wages. However, while refixing the pay pursuant to the order
passed by this Court dated 10.07.2023, the co-employees were fixed with higher
pay, whereas the petitioner’s pay was not fixed on par with that of his co-
employees. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for consideration of the
petitioner’s representation.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Standing Counsel and would contend that the petitioner’s pay was fixed in
accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.14396 and
14397 of 2016, dated 10.07.2023. It is further contended that the petitioner’s
pay cannot be fixed on par with that of his co-employees, viz., Murali and
Thirupathi, as the petitioner had suffered numerous punishments, including one
dated 31.07.2006 for unauthorised absence, pursuant to which his pay was
reduced to a lower level. In view of the punishments imposed upon the
petitioner, the parity sought by him cannot be granted. Hence, the learned
Standing Counsel prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side.
5. On a perusal of the factual position, it is evident that the petitioner has
not raised any objection with regard to his reinstatement. His only grievance is
that his pay was not refixed on par with that of his co-employees, namely,
Murali and Thirupathi. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel has filed a
detailed counter-affidavit, wherein paragraph 8 reads as follows:-
8. I humbly submit that, in response to the petitioner's
representation dated 12.03.2024, a reply dated 08.04.2024 was
issued, informing him that the basic pay fixed and paid to him prior
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
to his dismissal from service was in accordance with the directions
issued by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.14396 of 2016. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had been subjected to various
punishments during his service for several instances of misconduct,
including unauthorised absence, loss of revenue, excess cash,
negligent driving and other service-related irregularities. The details
of the punishments imposed upon the petitioner are set out
hereunder:
Sl.
No.
Offence Date
Order Date
Order Number Offence Details Punishment Details
1. 27.05.2000 PREVIOUS CLOSING/NON CLOSING
OF THE STAGE IN THE TR.
08.02.2001 0078/047688/
DL6/2000
SUSPENSION PERIOD AS SPECIFIC
PUNISHMENT
2. 17.11.2000 PREVIOUS CLOSING/NON CLOSING
OF THE STAGE IN THE TR.
05.07.2001 1949/104622/
DL7/2000
INCR. P.P W.O.C.E. FOR MONTHS
12.00 MONTHS AND SUS PERIOD AS
LEAVE
3. 16.10.2001 CAUSED LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE
CORPORATION
07.12.2001 2463/075714/
DL7/2001
FINED Rs.50.00 AND SUS PERIOD AS
LEAVE
4. 28.08.2001 KEPT EXCESS CASH AS AGAINST
THE TICKET SALES.
31.12.2001 2192/069935/
DL7/2001
FINED Rs.100 .00
5. 15.10.2002 PREVIOUS CLOSING/NON CLOSING
OF THE STAGE IN THE TR.
16.06.2003 9576/177340/
DL7/2002
INCR. P.P W.O.C.E. FOR MONTHS
12.00 MONTHS SUS AS LEAVE
6. 01.01.2004 ABSENCE WITHOTU LEAVE MORE
THAN 8 CONS. DAYS
27.03.2005 01610/052871
/DL9/2004
INCR. P.P W.C.E FOR MONTHS 12.00
MONTHS
7. 15.05.2006 ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE MORE
THAN & CONS, DAYS
23.12.2006 07996/040495
/DL7/2006
INCR. P.P W.O.C.E. FOR MONTHS 6.00
MONTHS
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
8. 13.12.2006 CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE TYRE
DUE TO NEGLIGENT DRIVING.
08.01.2008 12803/24000/
0L2/2007
RECOVERY OF LOSSES COD
Rs.133.00 (133X1)
9. 31.07.2006 ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE MORE
THAN 8 CONS, DAYS
12.03.2010 14568/076081
/DL5/2007
PAY REDUCTION TO LOWEST
LEVEL ABSENT PERIOD TREATED
AS LLP
10. 25.02.2008 ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE MORE
THAN & CONS, DAYS
17.08.2010 15084/050097
/DL5/2008
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE.
6. From the above narration, it is evident that the petitioner had suffered
various punishments, one of which was the reduction of his pay to a lower level
on 12.03.2010. Therefore, having suffered the punishment of reduction of pay,
the petitioner cannot expect to draw the same pay as that of his co-employees,
Murali and Thirupathi.
7. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner’s
pay was fixed in accordance with the entries in his Service Register and the
punishments suffered by him. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner
seeking consideration of his representation for refixation of pay on par with that
of his co-employees cannot be granted.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. State Express Transport Corporation
Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600002.
2. The Deputy Manager (PB)
State Express Transport Corporation Tamil Nadu Ltd.,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600002.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )

2026:MHC:4491
WP No. 35627 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 35627 of 2024
04-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 03:56:23 pm )