Allowed

M.Amuthalakshmi v. The Managing Director

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WP(MD)/29710/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a direction to pay interest on belated retirement benefits. The court held that delayed payment of terminal benefits to deceased petitions husband warrants interest compensation under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to pay interest at 6% p.a. from the date of retirement till actual disbursement within six months.

M.Amuthalakshmi Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶7

M.Amuthalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, 23/2, Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627011. ...Respondents

¶10

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 interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner for the belated payment of Gratuity, Provident fund and leave salary of her deceased husband from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Ramya For Respondents : Mr.D.Jebaraj Standing Counsel

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner with a grievance that her husband's

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶17

retirement benefits have been settled belatedly on 30.10.2024 and 01.11.2024 has approached this Court, seeking a Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of terminal benefits.

¶18

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband was working in the respondent Corporation and on 04.06.2023, he died due to ill health. The retirement benefits of her husband have been settled to the petitioner belatedly. The learned counsel further submits that this Court has already taken a decision, following the order of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in WP(MD) No.21713 of 2021, dated 07.12.2021, directing the Transport Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of terminal benefits.

¶19

3.Mr.Mr.D.Jebaraj, learned Standing Counsel, who takes

¶20

notice for the respondent Corporation has not disputed the same and submits that as against the order of this Court in WP(MD) No.21713 of 2021, they have not preferred any appeal.

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶24

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

5.Admittedly, the terminal benefits due to the petitioner were settled belatedly. In this regard, this Court has already taken a decision that the retired employee is entitled for interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits, as per the dictum laid down by this Court as well as by the Honourable Apex Court in SK Dua Vs. State of Haryana , reported in 2008 3 SCC 44 and the relevant portion is extracted as under:-

¶26

“6. The employer is liable to settle the retirement benefits without any delay and the belated payment is liable 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

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/6

¶29

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶30

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.”

¶31

6.This Court has also relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in WA(MD) No.403 of 2010 etc., batch, dated 04.07.2014.

¶32

7.Since this Court has already decided the issue, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

4/6

¶35

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶36

benefits at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, within a period of six months from the date of

¶37

receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶38

10.12.2024

¶39

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes vrn To

¶40

1.The Managing Director, State Express Transport Corpn (TN) Ltd, Corporate Office, No. 2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶41

2.The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, State Express Transport Corpn (TN) Ltd, Corporate Office, No. 2, Thiruvalluvar House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/6

¶44

W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶45

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶46

vrn

¶47

Order made in W.P(MD)No.29710 of 2024

¶48

10.12.2024

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

M.Amuthalakshmi v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Amuthalakshmi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Nambi Nachiyar, Vs the Director of Elementary

S.Govindaraju, Vs the Distict Educational

P.Arulraj, Vs the District Educational

M.Ayyappa Vs The General Manager

M.Kannadasan Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

S.Palaniappan Vs The Superintendent of Police