Allowed

S.Balakrishnan v. The Management of

Madras HC29 Apr 2025WP(MD)/12850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired transport corporation driver sought interest on belated payment of terminal benefits. Following an earlier decision in a similar matter, the court allowed the petition and directed payment of 6% per annum interest from retirement till actual disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% per annum on belated retirement benefits from date of retirement till disbursement, payable within three months.

S.Balakrishnan Vs The Management of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.04.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶5

S.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul Region, Rep. by its General Manager, Dindigul. ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for the period of delay from 01.06.2023 to 09.03.2025, in paying the amounts paid towards her terminal benefits namely EPF Employee's Contribution, Gratuity and Encashment of leaves within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶9

. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel

¶10

1/5

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner interest for the period of delay from 01.06.2023 to 09.03.2025, in paying the amounts paid towards her terminal benefits namely EPF Employee's Contribution, Gratuity and Encashment of leaves within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent Corporation on 12.11.1988 and he retired from service on 31.05.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's terminal benefits was not settled immediately and there is an abnormal delay.

¶16

3. In view of the same, the only issue to be considered in this Writ Petition is with regard to interest payable on the belated settlement. This issue was dealt with by this Court on various occasions and this Court passed orders in several Writ Petitions. In fact, the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res-integra.

¶17

2/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶20

4. This Court in W.P(MD)No.4866 of 2023 (C.MuruganVs. the Tamil

¶21

Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., and Another) by order dated 07.03.2023 has decided this issue.

¶22

5. Accordingly, by following the order stated supra, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following direction:

¶23

The respondent shall pay interest to the petitioner at the rate

¶24

of 6% per annum on the belated payment of the retirement benefits commencing from the date of retirement, till date of actual disbursement, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

29.04.2025

¶27

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no SN

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶31

To:

¶32

The General Manager, The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Dindigul Region, Dindigul.

¶33

4/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶36

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.12850 of 2025

¶39

29.04.2025

¶40

5/5

¶41

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

S.Balakrishnan v. The Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balakrishnan v. The Management of

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

M.Jayaraj Vs The Management of Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

C.Bharathidasan Vs T.N.Venkatesh IAS

M.Kannan Vs The Additional Secretary to Governmnet

N.Shanthi Vs The Management

V.Seenivasagan Vs The Management

Dharmalingam R Vs The Management of