SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
G.Kumaravel – Appellant
Versus
The Management of Tamilnadu – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P(MD)No.3178 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 05.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P(MD)No.3178 of 2026

G.Kumaravel ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Management of

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Thirunelveli) Ltd.,

Nagercoil Region,

Rep.by its General Manager,

Nagercoil. ...Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents

to pay the petitioner interest at the rate 18% per annum, for the period of

delay from 01.07.2024 to 01.12.2025 in paying the amounts paid towards his

terminal benefits namely EPF Employees' Contribution, Gratuity and

Encashment of Leaves/Already surrendered Earned Leaves, within a time

frame as may be fixed by this Court and without affecting his right to claim

balance amounts towards those benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam

For Respondent : Mr.D.Jebaraj,

Standing Counsel.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:23 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P(MD)No.3178 of 2026

ORDER

Seeking interest for the belated payment of terminal and pension

benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Conductor in the

respondent Transport Corporation on 18.09.1997 and retired from service as

Special Grade Conductor Level-4 on 30.06.2024. However, the retirement

benefits were settled to him 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 05.12.2025

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.Mr.D.Jebaraj, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the

respondent and submits that the terminal benefits have been settled to the

petitioner, however, belatedly.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:23 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P(MD)No.3178 of 2026

4.By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final

hearing at the admission stage itself.

5.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions

made and also perused the materials placed on record.

6.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

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 03:55:23 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P(MD)No.3178 of 2026

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.”

7.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 Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top