A.Pradeepa Vs The Managing Director

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the 6 percent interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits of the the petitioner's husband, from the date of his death i.e.,09.08.2023 to actual payment made on 25.08.2024 in view of the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2025.

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.2862 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Vijaynivas, For R1 : Mr.S.Raja Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition is filed by one A.Pradeepa/the wife of an employee of the Transport Corporation, who died on 09.08.2023 seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum, for the belated payment of terminal benefits of her husband within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely

¶20

P.Arivananthan joined as a Technical Staff in the respondent Transport Corporation in the year 1994 and he died on 09.08.2023. However, the terminal benefits were disbursed to the petitioner only on 25.08.2025. Since the benefits have been settled belatedly, the respondent is liable to pay interest for the belated payment. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation dated 06.12.2025 to

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.2862 of 2026

¶24

the respondent, however, the same did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.

¶25

3.Mr.S.Raja, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for

¶26

the first respondent. Mr.Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent and submits that the terminal benefits have been settled to this petitioner, however, belatedly.

¶27

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

¶28

This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival

¶29

submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶30

The employer is liable to settle the retirement benefits

¶31

to its employees without any delay and in case, if it is settled

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.2862 of 2026

¶35

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 (3) SCC 44 , has held as follows:

¶36

“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.”

¶37

Following the same, in a similar issue, a Division

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.2862 of 2026

¶41

Bench of this 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 under:-

¶42

“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.”

¶43

Following the dictum laid down on this issue, the

¶44

writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

¶45

5/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P(MD)No.2862 of 2026

¶48

respondent/Transport Corporation to pay interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the death of the petitioner's husband, 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.

¶49

04.02.2026

¶50

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

¶51

To

¶52

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd., Bye-Pass Road, Madurai.

¶53

2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai - 02.

¶54

6/7