Madras High Court
WP(MD)/28421/2026 of K.Rathinakumar Vs The Management of on 1 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) NO. 28421 of
{CNR:
HCMD011409802026}
Case
QR
1. K.Rathinakumar
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Pallavan Salai
Chennai - 2.
2. The Administrator
Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Anna Salai Chennai - 2.
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 pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum, for the period of delay from the petitioner's date of retirement (31.05.2024) to till the date of reimbursement
(05.09.2026) of amount paid towards the petitioner's terminal and pension benefits namely EPF Employees Contribution, Gratuity and other monetary benefits within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court, without affecting the petitioner's right to claim balance amounts towards those benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents
: Mr.K.Senthilkumar for R1
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh for R2
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 Driver cum Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation and retired from service as Senior Driver (Selection Grade) on 31.03.2024. 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.K.Senthilkumar, learned Counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and submit that the terminal benefits have been settled to the petitioner, however, belatedly. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel takes notice for the second respondent.
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 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 first respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits at the rate of 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. 01.10.2026 NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi
B.PUGALENDHI, J. mbi W.P(MD)No.28421 of 2026 01.10.2026