Allowed

A.Jeyanthi v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Madras HC3 Apr 2025WP(MD)/9259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition seeking 18% interest for belated retirement benefits, holding the issue was no longer res-integra. The Court relied on a prior decision and ordered payment of interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9259 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. 9259 of 2025

A. Jeyanthi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

¶11

The General Manager The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Trichy Region, Trichy 620 001.

¶12

The Chief Financial Officer The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam 612 001.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum for the belated payment of retirement benefits including, Provident Fund and Earned Leave encashment amount.

¶15

For Petitioner : M/s.D. Siva Raman

¶16

For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.K. Jagadeesbalan Standing Counsel

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.9259 of 2025

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the 18% interest for the belated payment of the petitioner retirement benefits i.e., Provident Fund, E.L 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.

¶22

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent Corporation 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.9259 of 2025

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

The respondents shall pay interest to the petitioner at the rate

¶31

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.

6. No costs.

03.04.2025

4/8

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

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.9259 of 2025

¶39

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶40

gvn

¶41

To:

¶42

The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam.

¶43

The General Manager The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Trichy Region, Trichy 620 001.

¶44

The Chief Financial Officer The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam 612 001.

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.9259 of 2025

03.04.2025

4/8

4/4

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

A.Jeyanthi v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Jeyanthi v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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