Allowed

K.C.Kumar v. The Managing Director

Madras HC3 Apr 2025WP(MD)/9156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired transport corporation conductor sought interest at 6% for delayed settlement of gratuity, provident fund, leave salary and commutation. Following an earlier order in C.Murugan's case, the court allowed the petition and directed payment of 6% interest from retirement date until disbursement within three months.

What did the court decide?

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

K.C.Kumar Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9156 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9156 of 2025

¶7

K.C.Kumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tvl) Ltd., 23/2, Thoothukudi Road Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District - 627 007.

¶10

2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tvl) Ltd., Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District - 627 007. ... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondent : Mr.D.Jebaraj Standing Counsel

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.9156 of 2025

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse interest at the rate of 6% for the belated payment of retirement benefits Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Salary and Commutation.

¶18

2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 03.08.1991 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

4. This Court in W.P(MD)No.4866 of 2023 (C.MuruganVs. the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd., and Another) by order dated 07.03.2023 has decided this issue.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.9156 of 2025

¶24

5. Accordingly, by following the order stated supra, this Writ Petition is

¶25

allowed with the following direction:

¶26

The respondents shall pay interest to the petitioner at the rate

¶27

of 6% per annum on the belated payment of the retirement benefits

¶28

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.

¶29

6. No costs.

¶30

03.04.2025

¶31

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Sn To:

¶32

1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tvl) Ltd., 23/2, Thoothukudi Road Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli District - 627 007.

¶33

2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Tvl) Ltd., Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District - 627 007.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.9156 of 2025

¶37

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.9156 of 2025

¶40

03.04.2025

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

K.C.Kumar v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Kumar 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

S. Harikumar Vs The Management of

G.Murugesan Vs The Managing Director

The Correspondent Vs R.E.Crystal Joylet

Mugilnathan Vs The District Forest Officer

G.Subburaj Vs The Managing Director

Nataraju v Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation