Delayed retirement benefits attract 6% annual interest, even absent an express provision.

The petitioner, a retired Driving Instructor of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, retired on 31 January 2025.

His retirement benefits were disbursed on 11 March 2026.

After his representation seeking interest for the delay received no response, he filed a writ petition seeking interest at 6% per annum from retirement until payment.

The respondents reported that the benefits had been paid on 11 March 2026.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on eligible retirement benefits that had been paid belatedly.

If so, whether interest at 6% per annum should be paid, and for what period.

In S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Supreme Court recognised that an employee may claim interest on delayed retirement benefits under applicable statutory rules or administrative instructions and, even in their absence, may invoke Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; retiral benefits are not a bounty.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in W.A.(MD) No. 403 of 2010 and connected matters, dated 4 July 2014, the Court held that an employer must compensate an employee for delayed payment, notwithstanding the absence of a specific interest provision in the pension-fund rules; the Division Bench fixed the rate at 6% per annum.

The petitioner’s benefits were paid only after a delay of more than a year from his retirement.

Applying S.K. Dua and the Division Bench’s ruling on delayed payment by the Transport Corporation, the Court held that the absence of an express rule providing for interest did not relieve the respondents of the obligation to compensate the petitioner for the delay.

It therefore applied the established rate of 6% per annum to the eligible benefits disbursed belatedly.

Payment was ordered within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.