Madras High Court· 22 July 2026

Does the ruling in D.D.Tewari (Dead) v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, (2014) 8 SCC 894, granting 18% interest, apply where a specific statutory provision governs the interest rate for delayed DCRG settlement?

5. Gudalur Forest Division, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District, Sub-Treasury, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District v. Page 1 of 8

2026:MHC:3072 · WA No. 2018 of 2026
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Rule 45A, Tamil Nadu Pension Rul…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The facts dealt with by the Supreme Court in D.D.Tewari considered the issue in a broader way, whereas in the present case Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 specifically stipulates the interest payable for belated settlement of DCRG, so the Supreme Court's ruling granting 18% interest cannot be relied on and the statutory rate under Rule 45A alone governs.

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 45A — Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity — Interest for belated settlement — Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 45A — Statutory rate of interest — No judicial discretion to enhance — Held: Where Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 stipulates a specific rate of interest for belated settlement of DCRG, that rate alone is payable to the pensioner, and the High Court cannot enhance it by exercise of discretion. (¶7) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 45A — DCRG delay — Financial implications of judicial enhancement — Held further: Enhancement of the statutory interest rate by the High Court would cause financial loss to the State Exchequer and open the door to similar claims by other pensioners, undermining consistency in payment of interest for delayed DCRG settlement. (¶7) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 — Rule 45A — Distinguishing precedent — Applicability of D.D.Tewari — Held further: The ruling in D.D.Tewari (Dead) v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, (2014) 8 SCC 894, granting 18% interest, considered the issue in a broader context and cannot be relied upon where a specific statutory provision like Rule 45A governs the rate of interest for delayed DCRG settlement; the Writ Court's grant of 18% interest is set aside, and the writ appeal is partly allowed. (¶7, 8)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 7Regarding the claim of the respondent for grant of interest at 18%, this Court is of the considered view that the facts dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of D.D.Tewari (Dead) Through Legal Representatives -vs- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 cited supra, cannot be relied on in the present case. In the said case, the Supreme Court has considered the issues in a broader way and in the present case, Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in clear terms stipulates that a retired employee is entitled for interest for belated settlement of DCRG. When there is a specific provision for payment of interest for belated settlement of DCRG. The said interest alone is to be paid to the pensioner. The High Court enhancing the interest by exercise of its discretion would result in financial loss to the State Exchequer and it will open a pandora’s box, wherein many such pensioners may claim interest at 18%. When the Statute contemplates a particular interest rate for belated settlement of DCRG, the said interest alone is to be granted by the Courts in order to maintain consistency in payment of interest for delayed settlement of DCRG. Therefore, granting by exercise of discretion by the High Court is not desirable and in a case where there is delay in settling the DCRG, the Government Department is bound to pay interest as admissible under the relevant provisions of the Act or under Section 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as the case may be.

Acts & Sections

Rule 45A, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of 5. Gudalur Forest Division, Gudalur, The Nilgiris District, Sub-Treasury, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District v. Page 1 of 8 — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Where Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 prescribes interest for belated settlement of DCRG, can a court grant a higher rate of interest by exercise of discretion?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections