Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29390/2026 of R.Ramtheketharin Vs The Managing Director on 12 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29390 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 29390 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011459242026}
R.Ramtheketharin
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Managing Director
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai Chennai - 600 002
..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 respondent to pay interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to petitioner for the belated payment of Gratuity and Provident fund of her deceased husband from the date of death to the date of actual payment within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms D.Ramya
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.Senthilkumar
WP(MD) No. 29390 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 on the delayed payment of the terminal benefits settled upon the death of her husband, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The petitioner’s husband, namely, C.N.Annadurai, joined the respondent transport corporation as a Driver. He passed away on 12.05.2022 while in service. The retirement benefits due to the petitioner's husband were settled to the petitioner, however, 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.K.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent and submit that the terminal benefits due to the petitioner's husband have been settled to the petitioner, however, belatedly.
WP(MD) No. 29390 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
WP(MD) No. 29390 of 2026 Court was not right 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.”
WP(MD) No. 29390 of 2026
8. Following the dictum laid down on this issue, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest to the petitioner, on the belated payment of retirement benefits due to the petitioner's husband, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petitioner's death 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. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mbi
WP(MD) No. 29390 of 2026 B.PUGALENDHI, J. mbi WP(MD) No. 29390 of 2026 12-10-2026