BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.02.2026 CORAM:

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

1.The Accountant General (A and E), Office of the Accountant General (A and E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli Region, Palayamcottai, Tirunelveli – 1. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to pay the interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum for retirement benefits, viz., gratuity, leave salary and all other monetary benefits the petitioner is entitled for from the date of retirement till the date on which his terminal benefits were paid, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 11.11.2025 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango For R1 : Mrs.Chamundi Bose Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 18% per annum, for the period of delay from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, in paying the terminal benefits, within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies in the year 1985 and he retired from service as Sub Registrar on 30.09.2019. However, the retirement benefits were settled to him only in the month of June 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 11.11.2025 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.Mrs.Chamundi Bose, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent. Mr. Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent.

4. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

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 Co