Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC24 Feb 2026WP/35684/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

interest on delayed retiral benefits; encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs; Special Provident Fund; Article 226 writ of mandamus; suspension pending enquiry; retirement dues; S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana; Dr. S.L. Loganathan v. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 6% interest on belated payment; Directorate of Technical Education; Madras High Court

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum on the belated payment of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.09.2019, within two (2) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.36591 of 2019) closed. ¶¶45

Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy Vs The Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the belated payment of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs (due from 01.06.2016 but paid only on 22.09.2019), the delay being attributable to the respondents. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Despite directions issued by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents did not take effective steps to conclude the enquiry; the petitioner was permitted to retire, and the amount towards encashment of Earned Leave was paid only on 22.09.2019 although he was entitled to it with effect from 01.06.2016 — the delay being wholly attributable to the respondents, who withheld payment solely because the petitioner was under suspension pending enquiry.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

Having failed to release the amount when it became due, the respondents caused the petitioner monetary loss through the belated payment, and he is therefore entitled to interest on the delayed disbursement.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

In light of the principles in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and Dr. S.L. Loganathan v. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum on the belated payment of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.09.2019, within two (2) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 by a suspended Additional Director of Technical Education disposed of with a direction to pay interest at 6% per annum on the belated payment of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs (due 01.06.2016, paid only 22.09.2019) for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.09.2019, within two months. Delay held wholly attributable to the respondents, who withheld payment during a pending disciplinary enquiry contrary to prior orders of this Court (W.P. Nos.20584 and 36512 of 2016) and the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No.27192 of 2018). Reliance placed on S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana (retiral benefits not a bounty; interest on delay) and the Division Bench ruling in Dr. S.L. Loganathan v. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.No.35684 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No. 35684 of 2019 AND WMP NO. 36591 of 2019

¶7

Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy Additional Director of Technical Education (Polytechnics) (now under suspension) O/o.The Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai – 600 025.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Director of Technical Education, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st Respondent to consider the representations submitted by the Petitioner on 23.09.2019 and 18.11.2019 for sanction of interest on the belated payment of Special Provident Fund and Encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs, in the

¶14

Page 1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.35684 of 2019 light of the orders already passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Dua Vs.State of Haryana within a reasonable period as fixed by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. T.Ranganathan

¶18

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking sanction of interest on the belated payment of a sum of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs for the period from 01.06.2016 to 22.09.2019, and also on a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the Government’s contribution to the Special Provident Fund for the said period.

¶21

The petitioner, while serving as Additional Technical Director of Technical Education, was placed under suspension on allegations of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension before this Court in W.P. No.20584 of 2016. This Court, by order dated 12.07.2016,

¶22

observing that the impugned order of suspension dated 31.05.2016 was issued on the eve of the petitioner’s superannuation, directed the first

¶23

Page 2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.35684 of 2019

¶26

respondent to commence and complete the enquiry proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶27

Though the petitioner was placed under suspension, he was entitled to encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs. Non-payment of the said benefits compelled the petitioner to file W.P. No.36512 of 2016. By order dated 19.10.2016, this Court directed the Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai, to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding payment of the Special Provident Fund and encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs standing to his credit as on 31.05.2016, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶28

Though the order was passed on 19.10.2016, the sum of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs was paid only on 22.09.2019.

¶29

Page 3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.35684 of 2019 5. The order passed in W.P. No.36512 of 2016 was challenged

¶32

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.27192 of 2018. The said SLP was dismissed with a direction to conclude the enquiry within three months, failing which the amount representing encashment of Earned Leave was to be released to the respondent within two weeks thereafter.

¶33

Instead of releasing the amount towards encashment of Earned Leave, the respondents filed a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time to conclude the enquiry. The said application was also dismissed on 22.04.2019. The payment of the amount towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs was withheld solely on the ground that the petitioner was under suspension pending enquiry.

¶34

Despite the directions issued by this Court as well as by the

¶35

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents did not take effective steps to conclude the enquiry. On the contrary, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service, and thereafter the amount towards encashment of Earned Leave was paid only on 22.09.2019. The petitioner was entitled to encashment of Earned Leave with effect from 01.06.2016, and the delay

¶36

Page 4/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.35684 of 2019 in payment is wholly attributable to the respondents. Under the guise of

¶39

conducting an enquiry, the respondents failed to release the amount when it became due. As a result, the petitioner has suffered monetary loss on account of the belated payment and is therefore entitled to interest on the delayed disbursement.

¶40

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana held that retiral benefits are not in the nature of a bounty, and an employee is entitled to receive such benefits as a matter of right immediately upon superannuation, unless they are withheld by way of punishment in accordance with law. It was observed that, where there is delay, the employee would be entitled to interest, particularly if statutory rules govern the field.

¶41

A Division Bench of this Court, in Dr. S.L. Loganathan v. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (W.P. No.39320 of 2005, dated 12.05.2011), held that belated payment of pensionary benefits, including encashment of earned leave, would entitle the employee to interest, and in that case directed payment of interest at 12% per annum.

¶42

Page 5/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.35684 of 2019 10. In the light of the above principles, this Writ Petition is

¶45

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the belated payment of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs for the period from 01.06.2016 to 22.09.2019, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.02.2026

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

msv

The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶52

2.The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.

¶53

Page 6/7

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.35684 of 2019

¶56

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

¶57

msv

¶58

WP No. 35684 of 2019 AND W.M.P NO. 36591 of 2019

¶59

24.02.2026

¶60

Page 7/7

¶61

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
First respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's representations dated 23.09.2019 and 18.11.2019 for sanction of interest on the belated payment of Special Provident Fund and Encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs — an omission challenged by way of mandamus (no discrete impugned order is named in the text).¶¶13
Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department (1st Respondent)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, while serving as Additional Technical Director of Technical Education, was placed under suspension on allegations of misconduct.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the suspension order before this Court in W.P. No.20584 of 2016; by order dated 12.07.2016, observing that the suspension order dated 31.05.2016 was issued on the eve of his superannuation, the Court directed the first respondent to commence and complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four (4) months.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Non-payment of the entitlements compelled the petitioner to file W.P. No.36512 of 2016; by order dated 19.10.2016 this Court directed the Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai, to consider the petitioner's representation regarding payment of the Special Provident Fund and encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs standing to his credit as on 31.05.2016, within three (3) weeks.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
The order of 19.10.2016 was not acted upon: the sum of Rs.20,19,578/- towards encashment of Earned Leave/Private Affairs was paid only on 22.09.2019.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
The order in W.P. No.36512 of 2016 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.27192 of 2018; the SLP was dismissed with a direction to conclude the enquiry within three months, failing which the encashment amount was to be released within two weeks thereafter.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Instead of releasing the amount, the respondents filed a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time to conclude the enquiry, which was dismissed on 22.04.2019; the payment was withheld solely on the ground that the petitioner was under suspension pending enquiry.¶¶33

Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.Sundaramoorthy v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ponmani Vs The Principal Secretary to the Govt of Tamil Nadu

R.Ramadhevi Vs the Chariman Cum Managing

A.Nandakumar, Vs Mr. Siddarth S.K. Raj

Mr.D. Kaliyamoorthy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Sivasankara Rao Mannava Vs Chairman and Managing director, NTPC Limited

K.P.Venkatesan, Vs Shiv Das Meena, I.a.S., and 2 others