Allowed

A.Periyasamy v. The Managing Director

Madras HC17 Mar 2025WP(MD)/7127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired transport corporation conductor sought 6% interest on belated payment of gratuity, provident fund and other terminal benefits. Following an earlier order in a similar matter, the Court allowed the petition and directed payment of 6% interest from retirement to actual disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay 6% per annum interest on belated retirement benefits from date of retirement to actual disbursement, within three months.

A.Periyasamy Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.7127 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7127 of 2025

A.Periyasamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (KMB) Ltd., New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-612 001.

¶11

The General Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (KMB) Ltd., Kumbakonam Region, New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-612 001.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents to disburse the interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of retirement benefits Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Salary and Commutation.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.7127 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the 6% interest for the belated payment of the petitioner retirement benefits i.e., Provident Fund, Gratuity, Surrender Leave Salary and all other retirement benefits from the date of retirement to the actual date of payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner.

¶20

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation and he retired from service on 30.04.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's terminal benefits was not settled immediately and there is an abnormal delay.

¶21

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

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.7127 of 2025

¶25

in several Writ Petitions. In fact, the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res-integra.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The respondents shall pay interest to the petitioner at the rate

¶30

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

¶31

6. No costs.

¶32

17.03.2025

¶33

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gvn

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.7127 of 2025

¶37

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶38

gvn

¶39

To:

¶40

The Managing Director, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (KMB) Ltd., New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-612 001.

¶41

The General Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (KMB) Ltd., Kumbakonam Region, New Railway Station Road, Kumbakonam-612 001.

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.7127 of 2025

¶43

17.03.2025

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

A.Periyasamy v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Periyasamy 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

P.Hari Subacini Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Parimalarkkan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Rathinam .R Vs The Principal Accountant General

S.Elangovan Vs The Joint Registrar

T.Sankaranarayanan Vs The Director of School Education

Subramanian Vs The Superintendent of Police