Madras high court has fixed December 31 as the deadline for TNSTCTirunelveli division to comply with an earlier order of the court asking it to pay settlement benefits to a retired employee. Justice S Vaidyanathan passed the order while hearing the contempt petition filed by S Piramanayagam, a retired employee from Tirunelveli.
TNSTC must pay gratuity to former staffer by Dec 31: HC
tnn | Updated: Dec 2, 2019, 4:27 IST
AA
Madurai: Madras high court has fixed December 31 as the deadline for TNSTCTirunelveli division to comply with an earlier order of the court asking it to pay settlement benefits to a retired employee. Justice S Vaidyanathan passed the order while hearing the contempt petition filed by S Piramanayagam, a retired employee from Tirunelveli.
The judge observed that since the petitioner had sought the relief of settlement benefits, the general manager of TNSTC was bound to pay it. The court expressed displeasure at the inaction of Tirunelveli district collector and Palayamkottai tahsildar in this regard.
“When there is an order passed by this court, they should have attached the property which would have forced the TNSTC management to approach the court seeking a clarification or for the disbursal of the amount,” observed the judge. Justice Vaidyanathan also pulled up the TNSTC management for not properly instructing the counsel appearing on its behalf to place correct information before the court.
The judge said he was giving one more opportunity to the TNSTC management by granting time till December 31 to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner with interest of 10% per annum, after adjusting the amount already paid.
The court directed that if the amount is not paid, the Tirunelveli district collector and Palayamkottai tahsildar should attach the property of TNSTC on January 1, 2020, failing which statutory notice would be issued to the authorities concerned.
TOP DEALS
Samsung Galaxy Note 10 (Aura Glow, 8GB RAM, 256GB Storage) with No Cost EMI/Additional Exchange Offers
₹69999.00
BUY
Vivo S1 (Blue, 6GB RAM, 128GB Storage) with No Cost EMI/Additional Exchange Offers
₹18990.00
BUY
TRENDING NOW
Supreme Court gives clean chit to Modi government in Rafale deal
Supreme Court dismisses petitions seeking review of Rafale order
One of the great architects of modern India: Rahul on Jawaharlal Nehru
START A CONVERSATION
ADD COMMENT
Next Story
CITYHC confirms acquittal of five in murder case
Kaushik Kannan | tnn | Updated: Dec 2, 2019, 4:26 IST
AA
Madurai: Madras high court has confirmed a lower court order acquitting five people in a murder case in Kanyakumari district in 2007 saying there was no evidence to establish that they had committed the murder.
The prosecution case was that the incident happened on August 12, 2007 when Maria Viyanni, his relatives Madhavadiyan alias Charles, Rubesh alias Sahaya George Rubesh, Sahaya Anand and Antony Arokiya Jagan assaulted the appellant Antony, his sons and daughters for letting out sewage water in the lane. Following the assault, the injured were admitted to hospital where the appellant’s son died. Subsequently, a case was registered against the five accused but the Nagercoil sessions court acquitted them on May 2, 2017. Antony moved the HC Madurai bench the same year seeking to set aside the order but Maria Viyanni died during the pendency of the appeal in 2018. The appellant’s counsel submitted that though there were eyewitnesses to the injuries sustained by the deceased and others, the trial court had not taken them into consideration. He submitted that Maria Viyanni also sustained injuries which itself was clear evidence that there was a clash between accused and complainant parties.
Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution had failed to seize the weapon used for attacking the deceased and his family members. Hence it can be inferred that the prosecution had foisted the case on the five. Citing two apex court judgments, a division bench observed that unless valid and sufficient grounds are made out against the acquittal, the genesis of the trial court’s order should not be disturbed. In case of dissimilarity between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, the oral evidence of the eyewitness has to be given much importance. In this case, as observed by the trial court, even the place of occurrence was highly doubtful as each witness had indicated different places. Hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the motive of the crime which diluted the case.
The court said police had failed to prove the guilt of accused on account of their lethargic attitude and they had investigated the case as if it was a minor offence. Though there was no doubt that the deceased was murdered either by aruval or iron rod or bricks, there is not even an iota of evidence to establish that it was committed by the accused, observed the judges .
TOP DEALS
Samsung Galaxy Note 10 (Aura Glow, 8GB RAM, 256GB Storage) with No Cost EMI/Additional Exchange Offers
₹69999.00
BUY
Vivo S1 (Blue, 6GB RAM, 128GB Storage) with No Cost EMI/Additional Exchange Offers
₹18990.00
BUY
TRENDING NOW
Supreme Court gives clean chit to Modi government in Rafale deal
Supreme Court dismisses petitions seeking review of Rafale order
One of the great architects of modern India: Rahul on Jawaharlal Nehru
START A CONVERSATION
ADD COMMENT
QUICK LINKS
MAMATA BANERJEEPRIYANKA GANDHICHANDRABABU NAIDUURMILA MATONDKARMADRAS HIGH COURTTEJASHWI YADAVARVIND KEJRIWALTEJASVI SURYAPAWAN KALYANARVIND KEJRIWALYOGI ADITYANATHSRINAGAR ENCOUNTER
OPEN TOI APP
AA
GET THE APP
MORE FROM OUR NETWORK
Tamil NewsTelugu NewsKannada NewsMalayalam NewsET MobileIndiatimesTimes JobsFolloGreetZapActive WorldZigWheelsMagicbricksAds 2 BookAstrospeakNavbharat TimesNewsPointGames AppMX PlayerTimesPointsLongwalks AppNewspaper SubscriptionColombia Ads and PublishingTimes Prime
TOP TRENDS
Jharkhand ElectionShiv SenaMaharashtra NewsSanjay RautMaharashtra floor testDavid WarnerHyderabad doctorUddhav ThackeraySteve SmithAirtel New PlanTS Inter Time TableHDFC FastagMukesh AmbaniDSSSB Answer KeyWeekly HoroscopeSolar Eclipse 2019NewsHoroscope today
About usTerms of UseDesktop version
Copyright © 2019 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service
