Disposed

V.Siddhaiyan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC17 Jun 2026WP/21884/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired transport corporation employee sought 6% interest on belated payment of terminal benefits settled months after superannuation. Standing Counsel conceded liability for 6% interest; Court directed payment from date of retirement till actual disbursal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay 6% per annum interest on belated terminal benefits from date of retirement till disbursal, within six weeks.

V.Siddhaiyan Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 21884 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 21884 of 2026

V.Siddhaiyan

..Petitioner(s)

The Managing Director Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, no 12, Ramakrishnan Road, Salem 636 007

¶11

The General Manager Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse 6 percent interest for belated payment of provident Fund, Gratuity and Earned leave surrender within the stipulated time.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Pradeep For Respondent(s): Mr. K.Raja Standing Counsel

¶15

__________ Page1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 21884 of 2026

¶18

Order

¶19

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶20

“To direct respondents to disburse 6 percent interest for

¶21

belated payment of provident Fund, Gratuity and Earned leave surrender within the stipulated time.”

¶22

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the respondent corporation on 06.08.1991 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025. However, the terminal benefits

¶23

have been settled to the petitioner only on 11.03.2026 and no interest has been paid for the delayed period. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents, to pay interest for the delayed period. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

3.The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would fairly submit that they are willing to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of the eligible and admissible amount.

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 21884 of 2026

¶28

4.Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials

¶29

available on record.

¶30

5.In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of admissible terminal benefits from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursal of the terminal benefits of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

6.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶32

costs.

¶33

17-06-2026

¶34

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶35

KAN

¶36

__________ Page3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 21884 of 2026

¶39

¶40

The Managing Director Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, no 12, Ramakrishnan Road, Salem 636 007

¶41

The General Manager Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, Dharmapuri Region, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri

¶42

__________ Page4 of 5

¶43

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

WP No. 21884 of 2026

P.T.ASHA J.

KAN

WP No. 21884 of 2026

¶48

17-06-2026

¶49

__________ Page5 of 5

¶50

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

V.Siddhaiyan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Siddhaiyan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S.Kannan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P Ramu Vs the Secretary

Selvaraj Vs The Director of Agriculture

M.Arunachalam Vs the Managing Director

Premavathi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Vasanthi Vs The state of tamil nadu