Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29797/2026 of S.Karunanithi Vs The Managing Director on 15 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011471492026}
S.Karunanithi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,(KMB) Ltd New Railway Station Road Kiimbakonam - 612001.
2. The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn.,(KMB) Ltd.
Karaikudi Region
Managiri Post
Maruthapathi
Karaikudi
Sivagangai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse interest at the rate of 6 percent for the belated payment of retirement benefits Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Salary and Commutation.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr K.Gokul
For Respondent(s):
Mr S.C.Herold Singh
__________
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 03:53:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. Seeking interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation and retired from service as Conductor (Selection Grade) on 31.07.2025. However, the retirement benefits were settled to him only belatedly. Since the benefits have been settled belatedly, the respondent is liable to pay interest for the belated payment. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent, however, the same did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.
4. Mr S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents and submit that the terminal benefits have been settled to the petitioner, however, belatedly. __________
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 03:53:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026
5. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
6. The employer is liable to settle the retirement benefits to its employees without any delay and in case, if it is settled belatedly, it has to be compensated by way of interest for the belated payment. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44, has held as follows: “14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of “bounty” is, in our opinion well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right __________
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 03:53:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026 in dismissing the petition in living even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
7. Following the same, in a similar issue, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.(MD)No.403 of 2010, etc. batch, vide common order dated 04.07.2014, has fixed the rate of interest at 6% per annum and held as under:- “5. ..... even though there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund for payment of interest, cannot stand in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44. As a matter of fact, the Rules do not contemplate belated payment of retirement benefits. The Rules contemplate prompt payment. When the Rules contemplate prompt payment and not bleated payment, the Rules will not contain a provision for payment of interest. The Pension Fund which was created as a Trust by the Corporation was supposed to act in trust for the employees' benefit. If the Trust could not make payments within the time stipulated, then, irrespective of whether there is any provision for payment of interest or not, the Corporation is obliged to make payment.”
8. Following the dictum laid down on this issue, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits at the rate of __________
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 03:53:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mbi __________
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 03:53:12 pm )
WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026 B.PUGALENDHI, J. mbi WP(MD) No. 29797 of 2026 15-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 03:53:12 pm )