Madras High Court Employment and Labour Law Administrative and Public Law

Retired Transport Employee To Get 6% Interest On Delayed Benefits, Excluding Earned-Leave Salary: Madras HC

Jeyaraj Dv.The Government of Tamilnadu

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 30, 2026Published 4 November 2026 at 5:58 pm IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest for the delayed payment of eligible retirement benefits.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest at 6% per annum on eligible retirement benefits, excluding earned leave salary, from the petitioner’s retirement on 30 July 2024 until the date of actual disbursement.

It also directed

Payment was ordered within three months of receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Senior Superintendent in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, retired on 30 July 2024.

p. 2

His retirement benefits were paid on 2 December 2025.

p. 2

After his representation seeking interest for the delay received no response, he filed a writ petition seeking interest at 6% per annum on the delayed benefits, including earned leave salary.

p. 2

The respondents confirmed payment of the benefits but disputed the petitioner’s entitlement to interest on earned leave salary.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest for the delayed payment of eligible retirement benefits.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether interest was payable on the delayed earned leave salary.

p. 3, 6

03Law Applied

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 rules or instructions, and, even in their absence, may invoke constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19 and 21.

pp. 4–5

Following that principle, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A.(MD) No. 403 of 2010 and connected cases (4 July 2014) held that a Transport Corporation’s failure to pay retirement benefits promptly may require payment of interest, and fixed the rate at 6% per annum.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court found that the respondents had settled the petitioner’s retirement benefits belatedly, and applied the principle that delayed payment should be compensated by interest.

pp. 3, 5–6

Relying on S.K. Dua and the Division Bench decision, it directed interest at 6% per annum on eligible retirement benefits, but excluded earned leave salary, consistent with the respondents’ objection.

pp. 5–6