Judgment · High Court

W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 06.02.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHIW.P(MD)No.3339 of 2026S.Umarani ... PetitionerVs1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Mdu) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 625 016.

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Mdu) Ltd., Dindigul Regional Office, District Collector Office Post, Dindigul – 624 004.

The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation Employees Pension Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ...RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest the rate of 6 percent per annum to 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2026petitioner for the belated payment of petitioners deceased husbands Gratuity, Provident fund, EL surrender, Leave salary from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon`ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Court. For Petitioner : Mrs.D.Ramya, For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing CounselFor R3 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

O R D E R This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits of the petitioner's husband at the rate of 6% per annum, for the period of delay from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband joined as a Junior Tradesman in the respondent Transport Corporation on 22.01.1988 and he retired from service as Special Grade Tradesman on 31.05.2023. Thereafter, he died on 05.05.2024 due to illness. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2026 However, the retirement benefits, namely, Provident Fund, Gratuity and encashment of leave were settled only on 10.03.2025. Since the benefits have been settled belatedly, the respondent is liable to pay interest for the belated payment. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent on 12.01.2026, however, the same did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief. 3. Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the third respondent and submits that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner's husband have been settled, however, belatedly.

By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3339 of 20265. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

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 can 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2026retiral 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.”

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. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44. As a matter of fact, the Rules do not contemplate belated payment of retirement benefits. The Rules contemplate prompt payment. When the Rules contemplate prompt payment and not bleated payment, the Rules will not contain a provision for payment of interest. The Pension Fund which was created as a Trust by the Corporation was supposed to act in trust for the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.3339 of 2026employees' benefit. If the Trust could not make payments within the time stipulated, then, irrespective of whether there is any provision for payment of interest or not, the Corporation is obliged to make payment.