Disposed

R.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Nov 2018WP/21249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired workman seeking direction to recover gratuity owed by his employer. The court directed the District Collector and Tahsildar to enforce the recovery order under the Revenue Recovery Act within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first and second respondents to implement the gratuity recovery order under the Revenue Recovery Act within four weeks.

R.Loganathan, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P.No.21249 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.24917 of 2018

¶6

R.Loganathan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Salem – 636 001.
2. The Tahsildar,
District Collectorate Compound,
Salem – 636 001.
3. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to recover the sum of Rs.3,92,649/- as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Gratuity) bearing No.AA4/3476/2017, dated 18.04.2018 with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the 3^rd respondent with effect from 18.04.2018 till the date of repayment and award costs.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Ayyathurai For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Ramesh, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 M/s.Rajeni Ramadoss for R3

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the workman seeking direction of this Court directing the respondents to implement the order of gratuity ordered in his favour.

¶12

The District Collector has directed the Tahsildar to invoke the provision of Revenue Recovery Act and to enforce the order of gratuity passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2012. The competent

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

authority has computed the gratuity at Rs.6,62,340/-. As the management did not pay the amount, the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has issued a certificate to the first respondent with a direction to recover the amount due from the Management by invoking the provision of Revenue Recovery Act. The District Collector issued an order dated 26.05.2018 directing the Tahsildar to recover the amount. The Tahsildar sent a letter dated 31.05.2018 to the Management directing them to comply with the order. As the order has not been complied with, the petitioner is before this Court and this is the second round of litigation.

¶15

Considering the nature of grievance expressed herein and the limited relief sought for, the first and second respondents are directed to implement the order by invoking the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
5. Compliance to be reported before this Court.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ogy
To
1. The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Salem – 636 001.
2. The Tahsildar,
District Collectorate Compound,
Salem – 636 001.
3. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

+1cc to M/s.S.Rajeniramadass, Advocate SR.No.76096

¶19

+1cc to Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Advocate SR.No.75128

¶20

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.76414

W.P.No.21249 of 2018

CA(CO)

GMY(20/12/2018)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management, Vs Thiru.S.Vivekandhan

Plr Textiles Ltd., Vs Asst. Commissioner of Labour

The General Manager, Vs the Presiding Officer

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Presiding Officer

V.Panneer Vs the Presiding Officer

Mrs.Angammal Vs the Tahsildar