WP/34939/2022 of K.Palaniammal Vs The Managing Director on 29 September 2026

ORDER

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the belated payment of family pension of a sum of Rs.11,45,532/-, from the date of death of the petitioner's husband, i.e., 11.10.2005, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s husband died on 11.10.2005. Before his death, there was a dispute between him and the 1st respondent and, due to the same, he was terminated from service on 29.10.2001. When the petitioner’s husband raised an industrial dispute, the Labour Court modified the punishment into “Discharge” vide order dated 17.01.2005 in I.D.No.160 of 2003. Even after passing of the award by the Labour Court on 17.01.2005 for “Discharge”, the respondents have not settled the pension amount. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.11043 of 2011 for implementation of the award. In which, the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 20.06.2011, directed the respondents to implement the award passed in I.D.No.160 of 2003 dated 17.01.2005 within a period of 8 weeks.

3. In spite of such direction, since there was no implementation, the

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34939 of 2022

petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.17541 of 2012 seeking a prayer either to give a compassionate appointment or to sanction the family pension. In such writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 20.02.2020, directed the respondent to provide the family pension and other monetary benefits due to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks. Against which, the respondent preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.2512 of 2021. The writ appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2021, which was again confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. The learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner is entitled for the pension on the date of her husband’s demise, the deliberate act of the respondent withholding the pension and driving the petitioner to the Court to get her monetary benefit would be nothing but affecting the right to life. It is also his contention that since her right to life affected, by way of writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to have an interest and this position was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44.

5. The said contention was totally objected to by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that though an award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 17.01.2005, while enforcing the award, the fundamental difference between the

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34939 of 2022

petitioner and the 1st respondent is, as to whether for a “Discharged” employee is entitled for pension not. This question was challenged by the respondent up to the level of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not given any definite opinion and the question of law is left open. Therefore, the relief of pension given to the petitioner was only based upon equity and the same cannot be construed that the relief was granted as a matter of right.

6. The learned standing counsel would also further contend that even according to the writ petition in W.P.No.17541 of 2012, the petitioner has not come for any pension. He sought the pension only as an alternative relief to the relief of compassionate appointment. Had this Court given the compassionate appointment, the question of granting interest would not have arisen at all.

7. According to the learned Standing Counsel, since the SLP was disposed of on 11.03.2022, and the amount was paid to the petitioner on 02.03.2022, there are no grounds made out which would warrant giving any interest to the petitioner. The said submission was reiterated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34939 of 2022

9. Though the petitioner’s contention appears to be genuine, however, the issue that has arisen out of modifying the punishment to discharge is entitlement of pension. According to the petitioner, her husband is entitled to have pension, whereas it is the contention of the 1st respondent that he is not entitled for a pension.

10. Now the point to be considered is, even according to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 11.03.2022, the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion either on the interpretation of Rule 21 or the question of law raised, qua whether an employee imposed with the punishment of discharge is entitled for a pension is left open. Apart from that, while considering the writ petition in W.P.No.17541 of 2012, the relief the petitioner sought would also indicate the intention of the petitioner. While looking into the prayer, it is not for any pension. It is for two reliefs, either for compassionate appointment or for sanction of family pension.

11. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. It is a well-settled principle of law that the provisions of the CPC are applicable to the writ proceedings as far as possible.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34939 of 2022

12. In the case in hand, though the petitioner has come up for a relief in W.P.No.17541 of 2012, she has not sought for any interest. In fact, the prayer is not for any monetary benefit, but also for compassionate appointment in the alternative. In such circumstances, if we look at the entire gamut of the issue, in the backdrop of Order II Rule 2, there was a duty cast upon the petitioner to seek an interest even at the time of filing W.P.No.17541 of 2012, wherein according to the prayer, there was no prayer made for payment of interest.

13. In such view of the above factual position, though there has been certain delay in settlement of pension almost for a period of 17 years, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, now the prayer for interest by placing reliance on S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, for interest, is misconceived and erroneous in the above circumstances. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that in the instant case the claim of interest is illegal. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34939 of 2022

To

1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Salem Division 12, Ramakrishna Salai, Salem 7

2. The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employee pension Fund Trust Chennai 600 002

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )

WP No. 34939 of 2022

C.KUMARAPPAN J. JRS WP No. 34939 of 2022 29-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:28 pm )