Delayed retirement benefits attract 6% interest from retirement until actual disbursement.

The petitioner, a Driver who retired from the respondent Transport Corporation on 31 May 2024, received his retirement benefits on 2 December 2025. He sought interest for the delay, relying on the Court’s earlier decisions granting interest on belated retirement benefits, and had submitted a representation that received no response. The Corporation confirmed that the benefits had been paid on 2 December 2025.

The petitioner filed this Article 226 petition seeking interest at 18% per annum; the Court heard it finally by consent at the admission stage.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on retirement benefits paid belatedly.

If so, what rate of interest and payment period should be directed.

In S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Supreme Court held that an employee may claim interest on delayed retiral 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.

Following that principle, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held in W.A.(MD) No. 403 of 2010 and connected matters (common order dated 4 July 2014) that the absence of a pension-fund rule expressly providing for interest does not defeat a claim where benefits were paid belatedly, and fixed interest at 6% per annum.

The Court accepted that the retirement benefits had been settled only on 2 December 2025, after the petitioner’s retirement on 31 May 2024.

Applying S.K. Dua and the Division Bench’s ruling, it reasoned that retirement benefits should be paid promptly and that delay warrants compensation by way of interest, notwithstanding the absence of a specific interest provision in the pension-fund rules.

It therefore applied the 6% rate adopted in the earlier Division Bench decision rather than the 18% sought by the petitioner.

No costs were awarded.