✦ Madras High Court

Judgment · High Court

2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25

Judgment

W.P.(MD)No.12985 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 30.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDW.P.(MD)No.12985 of 2025 V.S.Chandrasekaran... PetitionerVs.

1.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2.

The Executive Officer / Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukoil, Swamimalai, Thanjavur District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to pay the interest of 10% for the belated payment of gratuity to the petitioner from 31.03.2015 to 04.03.2020 as per section 7(3A) of the payment of gratuity act 1972 and as per the circular of the first respondent dated 31.05.2019 to the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2025 within the time stipulated by this Court.1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.12985 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.P.RajagopalanFor R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government PleaderFor R2 : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Standing Counsel

Operative part

O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the second respondent temple. After retirement, the petitioner approached the second respondent to disburse the payment of gratuity. On 04.03.2020, an amount of Rs.3,06,569/- paid towards gratuity. For the belated payment of gratuity, the petitioner seeking 10% interest. Requesting the second respondent to pay the interest for the belated payment of gratuity from 31.03.2015 to 04.03.2020 as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and as per circular of the first respondent, dated 31.05.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 25.03.2025 to the second respondent. Against the inaction of the second respondent in considering the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.12985 of 20253. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner is entitled for the interest for the belated payment of gratuity amount under the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in our considered view, it is appropriate and reasonable to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both sides without going into the merit of the case with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.03.2025 and pass appropriate orders within a time to be stipulated herein under to meet the ends of justice. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.03.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 30.04.2025NCC:yes/noIndex:yes/noInternet:yes/noSn3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.12985 of 2025To:1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2. The Executive Officer / Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukoil, Swamimalai, Thanjavur District. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.12985 of 2025BATTU DEVANAND , J. SnW.P.(MD)No.12985 of 202530.04.20255/5

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 7(3A); Gratuity Act, 1972.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments