Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner Dindigul Municipality to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioner with interest calculated at the rate of 12% percent from the date of his retirement I.e on 31.03.2009 to the date of Full settlement. In All W.Ps.
!For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganantham for R1 & R2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.J.Lawrance for R3 Mr.P.Alagusundaram in W.P.(MD).15555/2013 :COMMON ORDER In all these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners, who are the erstwhile employees of the third respondent/Municipality have sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the said third respondent Municipal Commissioner to settle the Provident Fund dues of the petitioners, calculated at the rate of 12% from the date of the retirement.
2.In all the writ petitions, counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents, wherein, the third respondent has stated that the Provident Fund dues payable to the respective petitioner has been paid and settled. According to the third respondent, there is no such due payable to the petitioners.
3.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even though some amount has been paid by way of Provident Fund, interest has not been calculated fully and if the same is calculated, still a substantial amount is due to all the petitioners herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has given the following calculations as to how much is due to the respective petitioner herein and the same is extracted hereunder:
DATES AND EVENTS Date Events Balance Amount Provident Fund Amount Till 2013 Appointed on 09.06.1975 Retired on 31.03.2009 N.Ramachandran...
Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15553 of 2013 1,31,980/-
Appointed on 02.03.1982 Retired on 30.04.2012 S.Palanichamy ...
Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15554 of 2013 85,178/-
Appointed on 23.02.1978 Retired on 29.02.2012 R.Chandrasekaran Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15555 of 2013 61,900/-
Appointed on 26.11.1973 Retired on 04.04.2010 N.Murugan Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15556 of 2013 86,143/-
Appointed on 01.07.1981 Retired on 31.07.2010 S.Chandrasekaran Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15557 of 2013 1,27,944/-
Appointed on 01.07.1983 Retired on 30.06.2006 P.Nallusamy Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15558 of 2013 52,310/-
Appointed on 22.06.1966 Retired on 30.06.2006 S.Muthusamy Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15559 of 2013 1,87,001/-
Appointed on 23.03.1982 Retired on 05.02.2010 M.Sambasivam Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15560 of 2013 70,916/-
Appointed on 07.06.1971 Retired on 30.06.2007 S.Arjunan Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15561 of 2013 96,358/-
4.However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent, vehemently contended that the said calculation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners is disputed and there is no such due to the respective petitioners. According to the third respondent, the entire amount has been settled.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also produced a communication dated 06.06.2013, issued by the District Collector of Dindigul to the third respondent Municipality. In the said communication, the following has been given.
ghh;it 2-y; fhZk; fojj;jpy; jpz;Lf;fy; efuhl;rp Mizah; efuhl;rpapy; gzpg[hpe;j midj;Jg;; gzpahh;fSf;Fk; 1984-85Kjy; 2007-08 tiuapy; nrkeyepjpf;fhd tl;oj; bjhifia fzf;fPL bra;ag;gl;L> jzpf;iff;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk;> cs;shl;rp epjpj; jzpf;ifj;Jiw cjtp ,af;Feh; rhd;wpjH; bgwg;gl;l gpd; cs;shl;rp epjpj; jzpf;ifj;Jiw ,af;Feh; mth;fspd; xg;g[jy; bgw;W efh;;kd;w mDkjp bgw;w gpd;dh; midj;J gzpahsh;fSf;Fk; nrkey epjp bjhiff;fhd tl;oj;bjhif tHq;;f ,aYk; vdj; bjhptpj;Js;shh; vd;w tpguk; kDjhuh;fSf;Fj; bjhptpf;fyhfpwJ.
6.By acknowledging the said letter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the said communication given by the District Collector, after having obtained information from the third respondent, the actual interest has to be calculated to the Provident Fund amount and based on such calculation, dues have to be paid to the petitioners.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that in this regard, each of the petitioner had given individuals representations, dated 25.07.2013, to the third respondent Municipality.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also submitted that if these representations submitted by each petitioner is considered and decided in the light of the calculation given by the petitioners as well as the communication given by the District Collector concerned and an order to that effect is passed regarding the payment of dues, if any, payable to the petitioners, the petitioners would be satisfied.
9.Considering the said submissions made by both sides, the following order is passed in all these writ petitions:
?Without going into the rival claim made by both sides, as to whether Provident Fund dues is still to be paid to the petitioners or not, the third respondent is directed to consider the respective representations submitted by these petitioners, dated 25.07.2013 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. During the process of deciding the said representations and an order to that effect to be passed by the third respondent, the calculation of Provident Fund payable to each of the petitioner and the interest calculated on the said amount and the total amount and the date of payment, if it is already paid, also to be given. Still any amount is due and payable to the petitioner, such amount can be paid to the respective petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.?
10.With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
To
1. The Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai ? 5.
2. The Director of Local Fund Audit, 4th Floor, Kuralagam, Explanade, Chennai ? 600 018.
3. The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Municipal Building, Dindigul.
.