Madras High Court Employment and Labour Law Constitutional Law

Retired Driver’s Benefits Paid 20 Months Late: Madras HC Orders 6% Interest From Retirement

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 27, 2026Published 28 October 2026 at 4:31 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on retirement benefits paid after a delay, despite the absence of an express provision for interest.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition and directed the respondent to pay interest at 6% per annum on the eligible retirement benefits disbursed belatedly, calculated from the date of retirement until actual disbursement, within six months of receiving a copy of the order.

It also directed

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner, a retired Senior Grade Driver, retired on 28 February 2023.

p. 2

His retirement benefits were paid on 30 October 2024.

p. 2

After his representation seeking interest for the delay received no response, he sought a writ directing payment of interest at 6% per annum on the belated benefits.

pp. 2–3

The respondent confirmed that the benefits had been paid on 30 October 2024.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on retirement benefits paid after a delay, despite the absence of an express provision for interest.

pp. 4–6

ii.If so, what rate and period of interest should apply.

p. 6

03Law Applied

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

pp. 4–5

The Court also followed the Division Bench’s decision in W.A.(MD) No. 403 of 2010 and connected matters, which held that a lack of an express interest provision in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund does not excuse delayed payment and fixed interest at 6% per annum.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s benefits were settled well after his retirement, and the respondent confirmed the date of payment.

pp. 2–3

Applying S.K. Dua and the Division Bench ruling, the Court held that retirement benefits must be paid promptly and that delay warrants compensation by way of interest, even where the governing rules do not expressly provide for it.

pp. 4–6

It accordingly applied the 6% rate established in the Division Bench decision.

pp. 5–6