Allowed

Berkmans v. the Managing Director

Madras HC27 Apr 2018WP(MD)/9758/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking 18% interest on delayed retirement benefits. The Court held that while interest is payable, the claimed rate was excessive and directed the respondents to pay 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of retirement benefits from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment.

Berkmans Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9758 of 2018

Berkmans

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The General Manager,

¶12

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Ranithottam, Nagercoil – 629 001, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay 18% interest for the belated payment of the petitioner's retirement benefits ie., Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Salary, from the date of the petitioner's retirement to the actual date of payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner within a stipulated time.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass For respondents : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sathiyasingh, learned standing counsel for the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner seeks for payment of interest at the rate of 18% for the belated payment of retirement benefits ie., Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in several decisions have held that when there is any delay in

¶19

¶20

payment of retirement benefits, more particularly, Gratuity, the employee is entitled for payment along with interest. Therefore, when the respondents are admittedly not paid retirement benefits on the due date, they are bound to pay interest to the retired employee. However, I find that the claim of interest at the rate of 18% is on the higher side.

¶21

In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of the retirement benefits ie., Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. to the petitioner from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. The respondents are directed to comply with the above direction within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Managing Director,

¶28

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited,

¶29

Tirunelveli.

¶30

2.The General Manager,

¶31

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Limited, Ranithottam,

¶32

Nagercoil – 629 001, Kanyakumari District.

¶33

+1CC TO Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass, Advocate, Sr No.64291 +1CC TO Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, Advocate, Sr No.64713

¶34

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.9758 of 2018 27.04.2018 3/3

¶35

gcg MS/PN/SAR.3/15.05.2018/2P.5C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Berkmans v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Berkmans v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Competition Team Vs Union of India

M/s.Ponni Mobiles rep by Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.K.Pattabhirama Mudaliar, Vs The Deputy Commercial Officer

P.Jeganathan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

V. Muniyasamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Thangammal, Vs the Managing Director