Disposed

C.Dharmalingam(4437) v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.

Madras HC7 Jan 2026WP(MD)/205/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Transport Corporation driver sought interest on terminal and pension benefits paid about eighteen months after retirement. Following Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents, the Court directed the respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum from retirement till actual disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 6% per annum on retirement benefits from date of retirement till actual disbursement, payable within six months.

C.Dharmalingam(4437) Vs The Tamil Nadu State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

C.Dharmalingam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd. Rep by its Managing Director Tirunelveli Division Kattapomman Nagar V.M.Chathiram Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd. Rep by its General Manager Nagercoil Region Ranithottam Nagercoil.

¶12

3.The Administrator

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum for the period of delay from the petitioners date of retirement 31.05.2024 to till the date of

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶18

reimbursement 02.12.2025 of amount paid towards the petitioners terminal and pension benefits namely EPF Employees Contributions Gratuity, Encashment of Earned / Sick Leaves and other monetary benefits etc., within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court without affecting the petitioners right to claim balance amounts towards those benefits.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan

¶20

For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Jebaraj, Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Seeking interest for the belated payment of terminal and pension benefits, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶23

2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Driver in the respondent Transport Corporation on 01.08.1993 and retired from service as Special Grade Driver on 31.05.2024. However, the retirement benefits

¶24

2/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶27

were settled to him only on 02.12.2025. Since the benefits have been settled belatedly, the respondents are liable to pay interest for the belated payment. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation dated 06.12.2025 to the respondents, however, the same did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.

¶28

3.Mr.D.Jebaraj, learned Standing Counsel and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents and submit that the terminal benefits have been settled to the petitioner, however, belatedly.

¶29

4.By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

¶30

5.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶34

6.The employer is liable to settle the retirement benefits to its

¶35

employees without any delay and in case, if it is settled belatedly, it has to be compensated by way of interest for the belated payment. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana reported in 2008

¶36

(3) SCC 44 , has held as follows:

¶37

“14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of “bounty” is, in our opinion well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in living even without issuing notice to the respondents.”

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶41

7.Following the same, in a similar issue, a Division Bench of this

¶42

Court, in W.A.(MD)No.403 of 2010, etc. batch, vide common order dated 04.07.2014, has fixed the rate of interest at 6% per annum and held as

¶43

under:-

¶44

“5. ..... even though there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund for payment of interest, cannot stand in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44. As a matter of fact, the Rules do not contemplate belated payment of retirement benefits. The Rules contemplate prompt payment. When the Rules contemplate prompt payment and not bleated payment, the Rules will not contain a provision for payment of interest. The Pension Fund which was created as a Trust by the Corporation was supposed to act in trust for the employees' benefit. If the Trust could not make payments within the time stipulated, then, irrespective of whether there is any provision for payment of interest or not, the Corporation is obliged to make payment.”

¶45

8.Following the dictum laid down on this issue, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Transport Corporation to

¶46

5/7

¶47

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

¶48

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶49

pay interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursement, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶50

07.01.2026

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd. Rep by its Managing Director Tirunelveli Division Kattapomman Nagar V.M.Chathiram Tirunelveli.

¶54

2.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd. Rep by its General Manager Nagercoil Region Ranithottam Nagercoil.

¶55

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

¶56

6/7

¶57

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

¶58

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶59

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶60

gns

¶61

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2026

¶62

07.01.2026

¶63

7/7

¶64

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

C.Dharmalingam(4437) v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Dharmalingam(4437) v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.

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

Thangavel a Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Additional Chief Secretary

P.Rajamanickam Vs The Tahsildar

Raja P Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Sarankumar Vs The Chief Engineer

Pothum Ponnu Vs The Director of College Education

A.Kanagaraj (Edp No.T2D890009) Vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd.