Allowed

M.Balasubramanian v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Madras HC29 Apr 2026WP(MD)/13505/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay 12% interest on delayed terminal and pension benefits. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, holding the issue was covered by precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum from retirement till payment date, to be completed within five months of the order.

M.Balasubramanian Vs The Tamil Nadu State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.13505 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13505 of 2026

¶7

M.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director Madurai Division, Madurai

¶10

2.The Administrator Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust Thiruvalluvar Illam Anna Salai, Chennai-2 ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay from the petitioner's date of retirement (31.03.2025) to till the date of reimbursement (11.03.2026) of amount paid towards the petitioner's terminal and pension benefits, namely, EPF

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.13505 of 2026

¶15

employee's contribution, gratuity, encashment of earned/sick leaves and other monetary benefits etc., within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court without affecting the petitioner's right to claim balance amounts towards those benefits.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramachandra Pradeep Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel for R2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Mr.S.Ramachandra Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel, takes

¶19

notice for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the second respondent.

¶20

2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶21

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respective respondents.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.13505 of 2026

¶25

4. Learned counsel on either side unanimously agree that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by various Judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.403 of 2010 and batch, dated 29.04.2014 and W.A.(MD) No.1419 of 2021 and batch, dated 26.07.2021.

¶26

5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the belated payment of the petitioner's terminal and pension benefits, namely, EPF employee's contribution, gratuity, encashment of earned/sick leaves and other monetary benefits etc., from the date of his retirement till the date on which those benefits are paid to the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to comply with the said direction as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶27

29.04.2026

¶28

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶29

krk

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.13505 of 2026

¶33

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶34

krk

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.13505 of 2026

¶36

29.04.2026

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

¶38

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

M.Balasubramanian v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Balasubramanian v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.

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

A. Jerald Francis Xavier Vs The Director

V.Ramachandran, Vs The Managing Director

S.Sellakumar Vs The Managing Director

P.Manokaran Vs The Management of

Suba v Vs The Director of School Education

Rajalingom T Vs The General Manager