BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI S.Gurusamy ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd, By-pass road, Madurai – 625 016.

2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ...Respondents 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.

For Petitioner : Mrs.D.Ramya For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramaiah No.1 For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh No.2

ORDER

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 01.04.1996 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 2^nd 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