K.ThoplanSpl.Gr.Driver v. The Managing DIrector
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of admissible terminal benefits from the date of retirement till…
Judgment
WP No. 11841 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAWP No. 11841 of 2026K.ThoplanSpl. Gr.Driver, DR 2097,S/o.Kaliyan,..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Managing DIrector, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., No.3/137, Salamedu, Villupuram, Villupuram District - 605 602.
The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Cuddalore Region, No.2, Imperial Road, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District - 607 002.
The Administrator, Tamilnadu State Transport CorporationEmployees Pension Fund Trust, No.2, pallavan salai, chennai - 600 002...Respondent(s)This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ __________Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11841 of 202610% for the belated payment of gratuity, P.F, leave salary and commutation of pension amount to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):Mr. S.T.VaradarajuluFor Respondent(s):Mrs.S.Pavithra, SC, TNSTC(Villupuram)ORDERThe writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay him the interest for the belated payment of his Provident Fund, Gratuity, Earned Leave Salary and commuted value of pension at the rate of 19% per annum within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver in the 1st respondent-Transport Corporation on 31.03.1988 and retired from service as Special Grade Driveron attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. However, the terminal benefits have been settled to the petitioner only on 02.12.2025 and no interest has been paid for the delayed period. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents dated 20.02.2026, to pay the interest for the delayed period. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed. __________Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11841 of 20263.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would fairly submit that they are willing to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of the eligible and admissible amount.
Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
Operative part
In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of admissible terminal benefits from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursal of the terminal benefits of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 30-03-2026Index: Yes/No 1/2Speaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMRP__________Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11841 of 2026To1.The Managing DIrector, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., No.3/137, salamedu, villupuram, Villupuram District - 605 602.2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Cuddalore Region, No.2, Imperial Road, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District - 607 002.3.The Administrator, Tamilnadu State Transport CorporationEmployees Pension Fund Trust, No.2, pallavan salai, chennai - 600 002.__________Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11841 of 2026P.T.ASHA, J.MRPWP No. 11841 of 20261/230-03-2026__________Page5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the 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.