Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 03-02-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/No(2/2)ANUTo1.The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,3/137, Salamedu, Villupuram-605 602.2.The General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,Vellore Region, Rangapuram Vellore-632 009 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis…
Judgment
WP No. 3249 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 3249 of 2026M.Gajendiran(Pay Roll No.70524)Son of T.MurugesanNo.1/208 Reddiyar Street, Samarishikuppam Village, Melpatti Post, Pernampet Taluk, Vellore District-635 805..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,3/137, Salamedu, Villupuram-605 602.
The General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,Vellore Region, Rangapuram Vellore-632 009..Respondent(s)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 8 % per annum for the belated payment towards Gratuity and at the rate of 8.1 % per annum for the belated payment of towards Provident Fund amount, within the time stipulated by this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 3249 of 2026__________Page2 of 4For Petitioner(s):Mr.J.LakshminarayananFor Respondent(s):Ms.S.PavithraORDERThe Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 8 % per annum for the belated payment towards Gratuity and at the rate of 8.1 % per annum for the belated payment of towards Provident Fund.2. Ms.S.Pavithra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, who had joined the services of the first respondent Corporation, had already retired from service, however, the terminal benefits have been settled belatedly. Therefore, the petitioner claimed 8% interest on the belated payment towards gratuity and 8.1% interest towards provident fund and he has also made representations to pay interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits which has not been evoked any response so far. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 3249 of 2026__________Page3 of 44. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
In view of the limited request made by the petitioner with regard to interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits, this Court directs the respondents to pay interest @ 6% for the belated payment of terminal benefits from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursal of terminal benefits of the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order taking into account the bank rate of interest on deposits.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 03-02-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/No(2/2)ANUTo1.The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,3/137, Salamedu, Villupuram-605 602.2.The General ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,Vellore Region, Rangapuram Vellore-632 009 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 3249 of 2026__________Page4 of 4M.DHANDAPANI, J.ANUWP No. 3249 of 202603-02-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.