BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.352 of 2026 C.Sukumaran ... Petitioner Vs

1. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., Ranithottam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Trust, Thiruvallur House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents 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 6% interest for the belated payment of the petitioner's retirement benefits, i.e., Provident Fund, Gratuity, E.L. and M.L. Salary, Surrender Leave Salary and all other retirement benefits from the date of retirement to the actual date of payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass For R1 : Mr.D.Jebaraj, Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner, who worked as Tradesman (Special) in the Transport Corporation, retired from service on 31.05.2024. However, the retirement benefits, namely, Provident Fund, Gratuity and EL Surrender Leave Salary, due to the petitioner were settled only on 02.12.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking interest for the belated payment of his retirement benefits.

2. Mr.D.Jebaraj, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the first respondent, submits that the retirement benefits have been settled to the petitioner, however belatedly.

3. 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 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.”

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. 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 i