Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29285/2026 of S.Shanthi Vs The Management of on 9 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011457902026}
S.Shanthi
1-124, Echam Thottam
Nagamangalam-post
Srirangam-taluk
Trichy-district.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Management of
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd,
Trichy Region,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Trichy.
..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 the petitioner interest at the rate of 6% per annum, for the period of delay from 17.08.26 to 10.03.26, in paying the amounts paid towards the terminal benefits namely EPF Employees Contribution, Gratuity and Encashment of leave of her deceased husband/employee (Late) V.Sukumaran, Staff No. K2C990026, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and without affecting the right to claim balance amounts towards those benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Arunachalam
Advocate
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,
Standing Counsel
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
The petitioner is the wife of one V.Sukumaran, who was the employee of the respondent Transport Corporation. He joined as a Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation on 06.06.1999 and he died on 16.08.2024 while in service. However, the terminal benefits due to the petitioner's husband were settled to the petitioner only on 11.03.2026. Seeking interest for the belated payment, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent on 02.09.2026, however, it was not considered by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.
2. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent submits that the terminal benefits of the deceased employee have been settled to the petitioner belatedly.
3. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
4. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026
5. 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 in dismissing the petition in living even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026
6. 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.”
7. Following the dictum laid down on this issue and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a widow, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits of the petitioner's
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026 deceased husband at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ogy To The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Trichy Region, Trichy.
WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026 B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy WP(MD) No. 29285 of 2026 09-10-2026