| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 600
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : W.P. (MD) No. 473 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHI |
| Parties : O. Krishna Moorthy Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd, Madurai & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Ramya, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K. Ramaiah, R2, S.C. Herold Sing, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 08-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution
- S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44
- W.A.(MD)No.403 of 2010, etc. batch, vide common order dated 04.07.2014
- Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund (rules)
2. Catch Words:
- Mandamus
- Interest
- Retirement benefits
- Gratuity
- Provident fund
- Pension commutation
- Leave salary
- Belated payment
- Constitutional rights
- Trust
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a retired conductor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the transport corporation to pay interest at 6% per annum for delayed settlement of gratuity, provident fund, pension commutation and leave salary. The petition highlighted that the benefits were paid on 02‑12‑2025, long after retirement on 31‑05‑2024, and that the corporation failed to respond to a representation. The court examined precedent, notably S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and a 2014 Division Bench order, which held that employees are entitled to interest on belated payments even absent a specific statutory provision. Relying on constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21, the court affirmed the employer’s liability to compensate for delay. Consequently, the court directed the corporation to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement to actual payment, within six months of the order.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner for the belated payment of gratuity, provident fund, pension commutation and leave salary from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment.)
1. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of terminal benefits from the date of his voluntary retirement till the actual payment, within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation on 28.09.1988 and retired from service on 31.05.2024. However, the retirement benefits, namely, Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Salary were settled only on 02.12.2025. Since the benefits have been settled belatedly, the respondent is liable to pay interest for the belated payment. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation dated 04.12.2025 to the respondent, however, the same did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar writ petitions, this Court has ordered for payment of interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the belated payment of retirement benefits and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.
4. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent and submits that the terminal benefits of the deceased employee have been settled to the petitioner on 02.12.2025.
5. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
6. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
7. 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 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.”
8. 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 employees' 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.”
9. Following the dictum laid down on this issue, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date of actual disbursement, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
|
| |