Allowed

R.Ravichandran v. The General Manager

Madras HC19 Dec 2025WP(MD)/36512/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought interest on belated terminal benefits paid to a retired driver. The court held that employers must pay interest for delayed settlement, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It directed the respondent corporation to pay 6% interest from retirement until disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to pay interest at 6% per annum from date of retirement till disbursement within six months of order receipt.

R.Ravichandran Vs The General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶7

R.Ravichandran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)Ltd., Dindigul Region, Bypass Road, Dindigul.

¶10

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

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period of delay from 01.07.2024 to 02.12.2025 in paying the amounts paid towards the terminal benefits within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.S. Arunachalam For R1 : Mr.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel ORDER

¶16

Seeking interest for the belated payment of terminal and pension

¶17

benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶18

2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Driver in the respondent Transport Corporation on 01.07.1990 and retired from service as Special Grade Conductor on 30.06.2024. However, the retirement benefits were settled to him only on 02.12.2025. Since the benefits have been settled belatedly, the respondent is liable to pay interest for the belated payment. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation dated 09.12.2025 to the respondent, however, the same

¶19

2/8

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶22

did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.

¶23

3.Mr.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent and submit that the terminal benefits have been settled to the petitioner, however, belatedly.

¶24

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

¶25

5.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival

¶26

submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶27

3/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶30

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

¶31

“14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view

¶32

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

¶33

4/8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶36

in dismissing the petition in living even without issuing notice to the respondents.”

¶37

7.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:-

¶38

“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

¶39

5/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶42

stipulated, then, irrespective of whether there is any provision for payment of interest or not, the Corporation is obliged to make payment.”

¶43

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

¶44

is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶45

19.12.2025

¶46

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes gns

¶47

6/8

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶50

¶51

1.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)Ltd., Dindigul Region, Bypass Road, Dindigul.

¶52

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

¶53

7/8

¶54

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

¶55

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶56

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶57

gns

¶58

W.P(MD)No.36512 of 2025

¶59

19.12.2025

¶60

8/8

¶61

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

R.Ravichandran v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ravichandran v. The General Manager

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

C.Daisy, Vs The Management of

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

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

S.Easu Nesan Issac, Vs The Management of State Express Transport Corporation (Tamilnadu) Ltd.

Rengaraj a Vs The General Manager

R.Rajendran Vs The Management of