Allowed

S.Suruli v. The Managing Director

Madras HC11 Jun 2026WP(MD)/15772/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired transport corporation employee sought 6% interest on belated payment of gratuity, provident fund, EL surrender salary and leave salary. Following earlier Division Bench judgments, the court allowed the writ petition and directed payment of 6% interest on all terminal benefits within five months.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% per annum on belated terminal benefits from retirement till payment, to be paid within five months.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

S.Suruli

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd, Byepass Road, Madurai-625 016.

¶11

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Dindigul Regional Office, Dindigul Regional Office Post, Dindigul-624 004. ... Respondents

¶12

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 6% per annum for the belated payment of Gratuity, Provident fund, EL Surrender salary and Leave Salary from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment within a time frame.

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Thangamani For Respondents : Mr.G.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai Standing counsel

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Mr.G.Gladson Micheal Rajadurai, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 08.06.2014 and W.A.(MD).No.1419 of 2021 and batch, dated 26.07.2021.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

¶25

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 benefits, including Gratuity, Provident fund, Pension Commutation, EL Surrender salary and Leave Salary and other retirement benefits payable to the petitioner, 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.

¶26

11.06.2026 6/6

¶27

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

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

¶31

¶32

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Byepass Road

¶33

Madurai 625 016

¶34

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Dindigul Regional Office, District Collector Office Post, Dindigul-624 004.

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

¶38

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶39

sbn

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.15772 of 2026

¶41

11.06.2026

¶42

6/6

¶43

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶44

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

S.Suruli v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suruli 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

K.Indira Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

P.Palaniyandi Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

N.Somasundaram, Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.

R.Radhika Devi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.Vijayakumar, Vs The Managing Director

K.Thangavelu Vs The Managing Director