Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

P.Rajakrishnammal vs The Managing Director
2026 Latest Caselaw 650 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 650 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

P.Rajakrishnammal vs The Managing Director on 23 February, 2026

Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
                                                                                             WP(MD). No.4885 of 2026


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                        Dated : 23.02.2026

                                                               CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                                   WP(MD)No.4885 of 2026

                     P.Rajakrishnammal                                                       ... Petitioner

                                                                    Vs

                     1. The Managing Director,
                        Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
                                       (Mdu) Ltd.,
                        Bye Pass Road,
                        Madurai – 625 016.

                     2. The General Manager,
                        Tamil Nadu State Transport
                                  Corporation (MDU) Ltd.,
                        Bye Pass Road,
                        Dindigul.                                                            ... Respondents

                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd
                     respondent to pay pension amount and interest to the delayed payment of
                     retirement benefits of Rs.5,99,558/- at the rate of 10% towards delayed
                     payment of terminal benefits and accrued interest thereafter for the
                     period from 10.02.2024 to the date of actual payment.




                     1/6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:51:17 pm )
                                                                                             WP(MD). No.4885 of 2026


                                        For Petitioner        : Mr.K.K.Samy

                                        For Respondents : Mr.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai,
                                                          Standing Counsel

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner is the wife of one Ponram, who worked as a Traffic

Inspector in the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation and died on

10.02.2024, while in service. The retirement benefits due to the

petitioner's husband were settled to the petitioner belatedly. Seeking

interest for the belated payment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition

for the above said relief.

2. Mr.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai, learned Standing Counsel,

takes notice on behalf of the respondents submits that the terminal

benefits of the deceased employee have been settled to his wife/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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:51:17 pm )

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:51:17 pm )

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:51:17 pm )

there is any provision for payment of interest or not, the Corporation is obliged to make payment.”

7. Following the dictum laid down on this issue, the writ petition

is allowed with a direction to the respondents/Transport Corporation to

pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits of the

petitioner's deceased husband at the rate of 6% per annum within a

period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No

costs.

23.02.2026 ogy

Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:51:17 pm )

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy To

1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Mdu) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Madurai – 625 016.

2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Bye Pass Road, Dindigul.

23.02.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:51:17 pm )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter