Disposed

K.Asokan v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Madras HC23 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought 6% per annum interest on terminal benefits including provident fund, gratuity and pension paid belatedly after retirement. The court held the petitioner entitled to statutory interest given admitted delay and directed payment within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% per annum on belated terminal benefits from date of entitlement till payment, to be paid within twelve weeks; no costs.

K.Asokan Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.25618 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.25618 of 2025

¶7

K.Asokan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,

¶10

Represented by its Managing Director, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Administrator, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust,

¶12

Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-02. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of petitioner's terminal benefits including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Terminal Leave Salary and Commuted Value of Pension from the date of his retirement i.e., from 30.06.2023 to 16.04.2025, the date on which the said benefits were settled to him and pass such other or further orders as this Court.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.25618 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr.A.Rahul
For R-1	: Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel
For R-2	: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct

¶20

the respondents to settle interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of petitioner's terminal benefits including Provident Fund, Gratuity, Terminal Leave Salary and Commuted Value of Pension from the date of his retirement i.e., from 30.06.2023 to 16.04.2025, the date on which the said benefits were settled to him.

¶21

2. Considering the admitted fact that there has been a delay in payment, the petitioner is entitled to statutory interest as provided under law.

¶22

3. In view of the same, the writ petition stands disposed of. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.25618 of 2025

¶26

the belated terminal benefits payable to the petitioner from the date of his entitlement till the date of the payment, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

23.09.2025

¶28

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes BTR

¶29

To:

¶30

1.The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,

¶31

Madurai.

¶32

2.The Administrator, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust,

¶33

Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-02.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD).No.25618 of 2025

¶37

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶38

BTR

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.25618 of 2025

¶40

23.09.2025

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

K.Asokan v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Asokan v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

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.Kamaraj, Vs The Managing Director

T.Gnanavel Pandian, Vs The Managing Director

M.Muthukumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Ar. Mothilal, Vs The Managing Director

Karthikeyan S Vs The Managing Director

R.Loganathan Vs The Managing Director