R.Dharmalingam vs The Management of — WP(MD)/16164/2026

Case under Others Section others. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD010762922026

Filing Number

WP(MD)/46435/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP(MD)/16164/2026

Registration Date

11-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

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section others

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R.Dharmalingam

    Adv. S. ARUNACHALAM,R.Praveena,R.Praveena, ,V.R.ARUNKUMAR,R.Praveena

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Management of

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer KumarView PDF

    Summary of WP(MD) No.16164/2026 The Madurai Bench allowed R. Dharmalingam's petition against Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. for delayed payment of terminal gratuity benefits. The court directed the respondent to pay 6% per annum interest from the date of retirement until payment, reducing the petitioner's requested 18% rate based on established Division Bench precedents. The corporation was mandated to comply within five months from receiving the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    For Admission (Transport - Interest Matters)

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(MD)/16164/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WP(MD) No.16164/2026 The Madurai Bench allowed R. Dharmalingam's petition against Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. for delayed payment of terminal gratuity benefits. The court directed the respondent to pay 6% per annum interest from the date of retirement until payment, reducing the petitioner's requested 18% rate based on established Division Bench precedents. The corporation was mandated to comply within five months from receiving 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