Vijaya Kumar G.R.(Staff No.TR vs The Managing Director — WP(MD)/14808/2026

Case under Others Section other. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 04th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD010702302026

Filing Number

WP(MD)/42987/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP(MD)/14808/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Service ( 140 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

04-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section other

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vijaya Kumar G.R.(Staff No.TR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Managing Director

  2. 2.The Administrator,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer KumarView PDF

    Case Summary: WP(MD) 14808/2026 The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed G.R. Vijaya Kumar's petition against Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd. and its Pension Fund Trust Administrator, directing them to pay 6% interest per annum on delayed retirement benefits from his retirement date (30.06.2025) until actual payment (11.03.2026). The Court found the issue covered by established Division Bench precedents and ordered compliance within five months from receipt of the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    For Admission (Transport - Interest Matters)

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(MD)/14808/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(MD) 14808/2026 The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed G.R. Vijaya Kumar's petition against Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (MDU) Ltd. and its Pension Fund Trust Administrator, directing them to pay 6% interest per annum on delayed retirement benefits from his retirement date (30.06.2025) until actual payment (11.03.2026). The Court found the issue covered by established Division Bench precedents and ordered compliance within five months from receipt of the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case