Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Outcome
Allowed
In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner for the belated payment of gratuity, provident fund, EL surrender salary and leave salary, from the date of his retirement till the date on which those benefits are paid to the petitioner
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respective respondents.____________Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.16517 of 20264. Learned counsel on either side unanimously agree that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by…
Judgment
W.P.(MD) No.16517 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 17.06.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.(MD) No.16517 of 2026P.Nagarajan ... Petitioner-vs-1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Madurai-625 0162.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Dindigul Regional Office District Collector Office Post Dindigul3.The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% ____________Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.16517 of 2026per annum to the petitioner for the belated payment of gratuity, provident fund, EL surrender salary and leave salary from the date of his retirement to the date of actual payment within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner: Ms.D.RamyaFor Respondents: Mr.S.Ramachandra PradeepStanding Counsel for R1 & R2Mr.S.C.Herold SinghStanding Counsel for R3
O R D E RMr.S.Ramachandra Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the third respondent.
With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
Operative part
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respective respondents.____________Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.16517 of 20264. Learned counsel on either side unanimously agree that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by various Judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.403 of 2010 and batch, dated 17.06.2014 and W.A.(MD) No.1419 of 2021 and batch, dated 26.07.2021.5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner for the belated payment of gratuity, provident fund, EL surrender salary and leave salary, from the date of his retirement till the date on which those benefits are paid to the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to comply with the said direction as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 17.06.2026 (1/2)NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet: Yes / No krk____________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.16517 of 2026MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.krkW.P.(MD) No.16517 of 202617.06.2026(1/2)____________Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner for the belated payment of gratuity, provident fund, EL surrender salary and leave salary, from the date of his retirement till the date on which those benefits are paid to the petitioner
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.