K.Thenmozhi v. The Managing Director

WP(MD). No.835 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12.01.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHIWP(MD)No.835 of 2026K.Thenmozhi ... PetitionerVs1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Ltd., New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam – 612 001.2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Ltd., Nagapattinam Region, Vellipalayam, Nagapattinam – 611 001. ... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of retirement benefits, Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Salary and Commutation. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Gokul1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.835 of 2026 For Respondents: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel ORDERThe petitioner is the wife of G.Kumar, who was the employee of the respondent Transport Corporation.

He was appointed as Junior Tradesman in the Transport Corporation on 30.01.1997 and due to illness, he died on 10.08.2023, while in service. However, the retirement benefits, namely, Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Salary and Commutation, were settled only on 25.08.2025. Seeking interest for the belated payment, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents on 13.10.2025, however, it was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief. 2. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents, submits that the terminal benefits of the deceased employee have been settled to his wife/the petitioner, however belatedly. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD). No.835 of 20263. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.4.

This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 5. 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).

No.835 of 2026can 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.” 6. 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.