Allowed

V.Kalaiselvam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary

Madras HC18 Dec 2025WP(MD)/36203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired transport corporation employee sought interest on retirement benefits paid nearly sixteen months after retirement. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in S.K. Dua and a Division Bench order fixing 6% interest, the Court directed respondents to pay 6% per annum interest within six months.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% per annum on belated retirement benefits payable within six months; no costs.

V.Kalaiselvam Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 18.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.36203 of 2025

¶7

V.Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,

¶11

Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶12

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,

¶13

Trichy Region, Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶17

The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶18

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 the interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits such as Gratuity, Earned Leave, Commutation of Pension, Provident fund and other retirement benefits payable to the petitioner with 6% rate of interest within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader For R2 and R3 : Mr.K.Ramaiah

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner joined the services of the Transport Corporation on

¶22

07.10.1992 and after rendering 31 years of service, he retired from service as Helper on 30.04.2024. However, the retirement benefits, namely, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension and Leave Salary due to the petitioner were settled only on 25.08.2025. Seeking 2/8

¶23

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

¶24

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶25

interest for the belated payment, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents on 02.09.2025, however, it was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.

¶26

Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, submits that the terminal benefits have been settled to the petitioner, however belatedly.

¶27

By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

¶28

This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶29

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

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶33

reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 , has held as follows:

¶34

“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 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.”

¶35

4/8

¶36

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

¶37

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶38

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:-

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay interest for the

¶42

5/8

¶43

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

¶44

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶45

belated payment of retirement benefits of petitioner 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.

¶46

18.12.2025

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

The Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶50

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶51

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,

¶52

Trichy Region, Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶53

6/8

¶54

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

¶55

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶56

The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶57

7/8

¶58

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

¶59

WP(MD). No.36203 of 2025

¶60

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶61

ogy

¶62

WP(MD) No.36203 of 2025

¶63

18.12.2025

¶64

8/8

¶65

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

V.Kalaiselvam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kalaiselvam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary

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

George Hentry Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Seethalakshmi Vs The Superintending Engineer

Asokan Vs The Superintendent of Police

C.Daisy, Vs The Management of

V.Thangaraju, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary

M.Kothai Andal Vs The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.