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 33. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent 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.__________Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18220 of 20264. Heard…
Judgment
WP No. 18220 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHAW.P. No. 18220 of 2026M. Paranthaman,(Pay Roll No. 06987 and PPO No.4755)Son of P. Munisamy, No.33, Pudhumanai New Street, Gouthampet, Gudiyatham & Taluk, Vellore District – 632 602...Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State TransportCorporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,3/137 Salamedu, Villupuram 605602.
The General ManagerTamil Nadu State TransportCorporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,Vellore Region, Rangapuram, Vellore 632009...Respondent(s)PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of a Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9 percentage per annum for the belated payment of his Provident Fund, Earned Leave Salary and Gratuity Amount within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.__________Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18220 of 2026 For Petitioner(s):Mr. P.Manoj KumarFor Respondent(s):M/s.S.Pavithra, Standing Counsel ORDERThe present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum for the belated payment of his Provident Fund, Earned Leave Salary and Gratuity Amount within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the services of the respondent Corporation on 27.05.1991 as a Driver and retired from service as Special Grade Driver on 30.04.2025, however, the terminal benefits have been settled only on 11.03.2026 with a delay of 315 days. Therefore, the petitioner claimed 9% interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits and he has also made a representation dated 20.03.2026 to the respondents 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.
Operative part
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent 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.__________Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18220 of 20264. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.5. 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 (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 03-06-2026Asi__________Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18220 of 2026To1.The Managing DirectorTamil Nadu State TransportCorporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,3/137 Salamedu, Villupuram 605602.2.The General ManagerTamil Nadu State TransportCorporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,Vellore Region, Rangapuram, Vellore 632009.__________Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18220 of 2026P.T.ASHA, J.AsiW.P. No. 18220 of 2026(2/2)03-06-2026__________Page5 of 5
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.